BIGGER... BETTER... BEAUTIFUL?CONFERENCE ON THE IMPACT OF EU ENLARGEMENT

ON CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES ACROSS EUROPE

Budapest, 14-17 February, 2002

FINAL REPORT

ORGANISED BY

Budapest ObservatoryCultural Contact Point Hungary

Euclid, UK

THE ORGANISING TEAM

Geoffrey Brown, Zsófia Földesi, Gyöngyvér Huszár,Péter Inkei, Zita Lévai, Nikolett Tóth, Attila Zongor

The aims of this conference were twofold – to develop further links, both theoreti-cal and practical, between the cultural sectors of the European Union and the acces-sion countries and to discuss the impact of enlargement on the wider Europe.

The conference brought together over 150 participants from 29 countries who ex-plored issues ranging from the prospects of expanding the cultural links and interac-tion amongst the proposed 25 (or even more) members of the enlarged EU to theneed to support and sustain cultural diversity through fostering identity at national,regional and local level, and the impact of the enlargement on European cultural in-tegrity, as well as on global issues. In addition, the conference explored the devel-opment of partnerships, exchanges and other links, using examples of good practiceand case studies.

The conference did not ignore the challenges that enlargement is likely to high-light and which will need to be addressed and overcome: ranging from national andEuropean bureaucracy to the differences in traditions, cultures, languages – bothwithin the enlarged European Union and in respect of those European countrieswhich are not currently applying for EU membership.

For the existing members of the EU, there were sessions which address thechanges likely as a result of the eventual reduction of the current levels of StructuralFunds, which have provided considerable support for the cultural sector over thepast decade. For the accession countries, there were opportunities to learn from theexperiences of the Member States in benefiting from the support available from theseFunds.

The conference generated ideas and suggestions for future developments, andthese are included at the end of this report. In addition, the success of the conferencehas stimulated a demand for future events that further progress this debate and alsoprovide a wider platform for opportunities to meet, exchange and learn. These willbe a further demonstration that each country’s pride in its cultural identity andachievements are no barrier to exchange and partnership, and to an enlarged Euro-pean Union that will indeed be bigger, but also better and more beautiful…

3

SETTING THE SCENE...PRESENTATION: ION CARAMITRU,President of Uniter, Bucharest, former Minister of Culture of Romania,AT THE OPENING SESSION

I must admit it’s much better to be a former minister, than an active one. As a former minister – I try to entertain you, instead ofdiscussing politics.

The problem that my colleagues and I are facing is ourselves. Running around and around – maybe, endlessly – to try and find ouridentity within Europe. Counting the years, queuing for admission. And who knows what the future brings?

12 years is a quite a lot, since 1989 – a year which gave Europe a new dimension and our country a new reason to exist.I used to say in 1992 that in a world I come from, a generation was born and lived besieged in its own country – and understood that

culture was the only way out.To overcome a deep sense of metaphysical fear, this generation formed deep and trusting friendships, visited the theatre, searched

for books, and made great efforts to learn foreign languages. I think there’s an indefinite something which comes from the spark ofinfinity, which grows together in every people – no matter where he is, or where he comes from.

To illustrate that indefinite feeling I’d like to recite from Marin Sorescu, a Romanian poet, who died recently:

A whim

Every night I collect from my neighboursAll the available chairsAnd I read verses to them.The chairs are very receptive to poetryIf you know how to arrange them.That’s why I get excited and during a few hoursI tell them how beautifully my soul diedDuring the daytime.Our meetings are usually soberwithout any stupid enthusiasm.In any case that means –That each of us performs his dutyand that – we may go on.

During the years of terror in my country our theatre expressed itself most powerfully and it was more effective not in long speeches,but in its long silences. If one is familiar with poetry one knows that the beauty of words lies in its pauses and its spaces. Actors andaudiences co-habiting for many years were yearning for better times.

Then, better times arrived.And nothing happened. What to do, now?But going back to the reason why we’re here – we have to investigate the political aspects of the European enlargement. During my

years as Minister of Culture, while I was representing Romania – we were always waiting for an introduction to the continent.However, even before our introduction we were already classified as well as all the other countries. First world, second world,

occasionally third world, military superpower, medium military power, stupid power, and so on. But no one expressed the truth aboutthe culture.

There’s no classification of countries in the field of culture.We are equal – and the most important thing is the specific contribution of each country to the European cultural identity. So, if we

start this political important event, which is the enlargement process, and re-create Europe, we have to take this into account – in thisvery important part of our history, culture is a strong aspect of our identity, our treasure, heritage and spirit…

To give you another real example by using a manuscript from our national poet Mihai Eminescu, who wrote it aged 16–17 sometimeduring 1966–67. All aspects of relativity are described vividly in this poem, which was introduced to the world by another famous manlater on in a more mathematical sense.

4

Caesar

Let us imagine Caesar living on a celestial body, far from us, whose beams only reach us in a thousand years. Let usimagine Brutus killing him today and us looking to that star through a telescope. Today we see nothing, there is only in athousand years we shall see what is happening today on that remote star.

On the other hand let us imagine that all people from all celestial bodies keep their eyeglasses aimed at us, some ofthem at a smaller distance, others further away. And today Caesar falls by the hand of Brutus. Poeple living on the moonwill see this today, those on remoter stars tomorrow, others further away the day after tomorrow, those on the remotestvalleys of the universe in a thousand years.

The ray of light which beams on his dying face travels through the universe and reaches all stars of the infinitewithin millions,or millions of millions of years, in turn, so why Caesar’s tragedy occurs again and again, endlessly. Thistragedy is alive but always in a new environment. Everywhere it is a moment which is not, which becomes, whichremains, which defines and then…

But let’s finish such literary speech… I couldn’t stop myself from improvising a little. But back to the political declaration.We the Romanians feel we have the right to be accepted as true Europeans, once again. To become again Europeans, we survived an

ordeal, which lasted almost than half a century. But during that ordeal a new breath of fresh air was born, which was coming from ageneration of kamikaze people obsessed with passing on their most precious treasure: the spirit and their love of culture.

Thank you.

“What can an international organisation like the EU do for European culturewithout ever harming national interests? Where to draw the limits of nationaljurisdiction and how to separate the common responsibilities the Union bears? Howto be just in distributing the common funds and for what purposes?

This conference promises to be a forum for an open discussion between the EUmember states and the candidate countries on the benefits and disadvantages ofenlargement. I am confident that the outcome of this discussion will help the work ofthe Commission.”

László Baán at the Opening Plenary

5

REPORTS ON THE SESSIONSPLENARY 1

THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE IN TODAY’S EUROPECHAIR: MIKLÓS MARSCHALL, Transparency International, Berlin

SPEAKERS: FERENC MISZLIVETZ, Institute of Sociology, Budapest / VERA BOLTHO, Head of Cultural Policy And ActionDepartment, Council of Europe / KIRILL RAZLOGOV, Director, Russian Institute for Cultural Research, Moscow

A sarcastic Eurocrat put the dilemma of enlargement this way: “We (the EU) pretend as if we would enlarge, you pre-tend as if you would be ready”. Miszlivetz expressed concern that the relationship between the nation-states and thetransnational institutions in the New Europe is still unclear. One of the most vulnerable points of the EU is that its institu-tions lack sufficient transparency and democratic legitimacy. The fact that an important part of the European continent isstill excluded from the EU and that there are great discrepancies between official declarations and everyday practice vis-à-vis Eastern enlargement does not help in overcoming this lack of democratic legitimacy. The central question is howcan trust in democratic institutions be created in the newly democratising countries of East-Central Europe? How do wechange some negative perceptions such as exclusive nationalisms and xenophobia, which still exist within the Europeannations? According to Miszlivetz, culture is the hope. It contains all encompassing meaning but it needs new institutionsand networks that will truly symbolise the new European cultural belonging.

Kirill Razlogov argued that the real unifying force between nations is popular culture, not high culture. This popularculture is not European but rather the world’s culture. People embrace this culture almost everywhere in the world and itbecomes trans-national mass culture. Another issue raised by Razlogov is the fact that there is no more money in the Westor real creativity in the East to overcome existing gaps. But he believes that there are misunderstandings not only inrelations between East and West but also within the current members of the EU. European citizens have to realise thatother cultures are not “out there” but that they are within each and every member country of the EU itself. The onlyfuture for Europe is to overcome old clichés and to re-think and re-assess the European culture as a culture ready torecognise, tolerate and embrace all diversities that exist within.

Vera Boltho identified two major players dealing with culture, the Council of Europe and the European Union. TheCouncil of Europe is 50 years old and has 50 members representing almost all of Europe. It’s main objective has alwaysbeen to bring the countries closer. In terms of policy, the Council of Europe was not promoting European cultural policy,but has always been creating and opening space for dialogue, thus contributing to the promotion of common Europeanidentity. The European Union is very different and its policy is strongly dominated by the principle of subsidiarity. Stillthe objectives are similar and both the EU and the Council of Europe have been moving in the same direction where oneof the key issues is the relation between the preservation of the identity of the European continent vis-à-vis globalization.Boltho believes that it is not necessary to have a cultural policy as such, but that there should be a space for the promo-tion of new policies (especially around the core cultural industries such as cinema or media as well as policies aimed atthe promotion of medium and small-size enterprises in the field of culture). However, it is important to bear in mind thatit does not make sense to promote cultural cooperation if it does not embrace the totality of the European culture.

DISCUSSION

Irina Boulin-Ghica disagreed with Mr. Razlogov’s point that there was no money in the West or creativity in the East,and argued that four countries belonging to the G7 were members of the European Union. As for Mr. Razlogov’s concernregarding the dominance of popular culture, Ms Boulin-Ghica expressed her belief that the driving forces are no longerhigh or popular culture, but rather education and political will.

In response to Ms Boulin-Ghica’s intervention, Kirill Razlogov agreed that there was money, but expressed his con-cern that very little is being spent on culture. Ms Boltho did not share his pessimism and stated that, in her perception, interms of policy the most important goal is to have diversified culture. She believes that, in a way, the demand is also

6

created by what is on offer and this is where she sees the intervention of cultural policy, to support what is on offer inorder to help create the demand. Mr. Miszlivetz noted that we still have this perception of Europe as being white, Chris-tian, democratic, successful and prosperous. He believes that rising GDP and living standard will eventually lead to thedevelopment of so-called “higher culture”. He supports this concept that the “demand” for higher culture or culture ingeneral is a process dependant on many factors and that this can be promoted from outside.

“Europe defines itself by its culture rather than its institutions. You only have to look at the neweuro banknotes: the symbols of power – heads of state, monarchs, generals – are gone. Instead weshow bridges and gateways which over and above their symbolic value are also expressions ofEurope’s cultural heritage.

Our national, regional and local cultures live side by side sometimes in competition, sometimes inconcord. It is that harmony in diversity that he Commission is determined to preserve… The thrust ofEU policy is to maintain diversity, to highlight the valuable differences which spark off new ideas andproducts through interaction.

Europe is an opportunity and not a threat. There is no European cultural equivalent of Big Mac andCoca Cola which is waiting to swamp you. There are just other artists and performers waiting to bemet, other audiences to be conquered and other lines of approach to be discovered.”

Thomas Glaser at the Opening Plenary

7

WORKSHOP SESSIONS1A – THE ARTSCHAIR: GYÖRGY SZABÓ, Director of Trafó, Budapest / SPEAKER: MIK FLOOD, Deputy Director, Euclid, London

György Szabó pointed out that “The Arts” is a very broad notion. He noted out that initially the conference organisers hadplanned separate sessions on visual arts and performing arts but that, as often happens, the arts was packed together in onesession making the task at hand more difficult.

Mik Flood began his presentation noting there were three points to remember.– First, the question of accession is interesting but it is not something that will happen overnight. Accession will happen

at different times. 2004 will incorporate some countries but not all of them and accession will be a gradual process.– Second, the definition of “culture” is a problem – as this word means different things at different times. For example, in

some places it refers to “culture and the arts” and in others it includes “culture, commerce and industry, etc.”.– Third, the arts are marginalised if compared to other areas of culture such as the audio-visual industries or cultural

heritage.EU countries can be categorised as having:

1. generally a high level of cultural output2. relatively high but reducing levels of state funding3. “mainstream art” as the priority4. high production, labour and transport costs5. few available resources for research and development6. some potential for alternative sources of finance (i.e. sponsorship, televising, lotteries etc.)

In contrast, accession countries can be categorised as having:1. generally low levels of cultural output (meaning the quantity of output – not the quality of the output)2. low and reducing levels of state funding3. elements of former state cultural apparatus still in place – draining funds4. resistance to change5. economic conditions not yet ready to permit more entrepreneurial approaches6. few alternative sources of funding7. restrictions on mobility in some countries

There are some exceptions to these – for example, the exceptional investment in contemporary art being made in Sloveniaand Croatia, but on the whole or as a general overview these factors are accurate. The Schengen agreement was supposed tomake mobility easier but this hasn’t helped with the accession countries – in fact with regard to East-East collaborations it waseasier in communist times to move across borders.

Regarding the arts and the European Union, historically the responsibility for culture rests with the member states – and thishas been reiterated in the principle of “subsidiarity”. The Kaleidoscope / Culture 2000 programmes were “emblematic” pro-grammes and not strategic. The arts are vastly under-resourced especially if compared with other aspects of culture i.e. heritageor the audio-visual field. There are no special opportunities for accession countries within Culture 2000. Other programmeshave special support systems for accession countries but not Culture 2000. The implications of all this for the arts are as follows:

1. mobility of cultural products favours those produced by large institutions where economies of scale operate – i.e. bigcompanies with big sponsorship potential.

2. the result of this first point is that there is a resulting disincentive for new creation.3. the independent sector is marginalised.4. the potential for dialogue, networking and collaborations are reduced.5. a European mono-culture (globalisation) is favoured in these conditions i.e. the same big exhibitions touring different

cities.There needs to be a vision which encompasses:

1. A statement of strategic objectives2. A programme to support mobility3. A programme to support research and development4. Targeted production funding for accession countries5. An ending to Commission conceived “emblematic” cultural projects. He called for them to stop thinking of doing proj-

ects themselves – because they don’t do it well!

8

DISCUSSION

Mary Ann DeVlieg pointed out that Ministries of Culture are insisting on programmes that we would be ashamed of and soshe would shift the emphasis (in the last point 5 above) from the Commission to our own ministries. We must therefore lobbyour own representatives at home to stop these Commission-led emblematic projects.

Godfrey Brand raised the point that some good initiatives have had no follow through – he cited a case where, after muchresearch, artists were brought together and then nothing happened. All those efforts to bring these people together were laterlost. He felt there was a need to provide a platform for links to be built and developed amongst artists from different countries.

Jolyon Laycock added that we should be supporting popular culture as this is the real culture. It was often grass-roots/indigenous culture versus commercialised culture. He said he didn’t fear a European monoculture but rather commercial-ised culture.

Naima Balić pointed out that central and eastern Europe have an incredibly rich culture but the problem is with dissemina-tion and marketing. Legislation for culture seems to revolve around audio-visual issues and intellectual property rights. The rest,she pointed out, is left to member countries (with the exception of legislation on cultural goods). She also pointed out that withintegration of new countries into the European Union, those countries that are left out will face new problems.

Ion Caramitru added some points to the “vision statement”:– we should target production within accession countries to counter-act the increase in visiting western arts.– we should also create companies of young people to work together on joint projects– It is time to work together on our continent – our identity – the new Europe working against the monster America.

Mik asked for visionary political action despite the fact that culture does not have a high profile. He wondered if the problemis that culture does not have voter appeal.

Paul Kelly added that we must not assume that the western countries of Europe have got models for supporting culture right.Central and eastern Europe should not be allowed to follow the example of western European models for arts support. Newmodels for arts support are needed and these new models should not be about structures but about values and processes.

Dragan Klaić added that we should have a vision for after 2004. What do we want to succeed the Culture 2000 programme?Who will define the strategic objectives of the next programme? The cultural field must start lobbying now for the criteria thatwill set the future objectives for the future programme. Dragan supported the call for mobility support – both for artists and forarts objects. Money should not be given to state prestigious or emblematic projects that could find other sources of funding. Theproposal for a research and development programme is good and this could be divided into various sub-sections:

– a need for information flow and access– a need for research and links with academia– a space for reflection and debate in Europe, i.e. within this – support for existing networks because they build links,

provide inspiration and they will help avoid making the same mistakes twice.Dragan felt it would be difficult to get the EU to give up their emblematic projects. Finally, there was a need for specific support to

speed up accession countries’ arts production – but he said that this needs to come from the cultural operators themselves.Corina Şuteu asked us to note the increasing tendency in accession countries to centralise culture in the cities with the result

that provincial areas are becoming poorer. Little in the way of strategic thinking has ever taken place in accession countriesbecause of the frequency of successive governments coming to power which left no room for long term planning.

Claude Véron added that if language diversity is important then translation programmes are crucial and should be structur-ally funded – he asked if this could be added to the vision statement.

Miklós Marschall intervened that he could see some positive effects of globalisation, as he felt that the public was becomingmore interested in diversity. There was the case of a marginalised Hungarian writer called Sándor Márai whose work has re-cently become famous in several countries thanks to the marketing and distribution tools of the commercialised publishingsector. There is therefore also a positive side to globalisation which is to do with exchange and more access to unusual or lessknown artists. We should not trash globalisation and commercialisation too easily. The state could have poured money intopromoting Márai but it would never have had the same effect as the commercial companies – who do it better.

Perhaps we were also too obsessed with lobbying governments when their power in culture is in fact diminishing. There areexciting things happening in urban policy and urban development policies would be much more important in the future. Weshould talk to a matrix of policy-makers. Finally, we should pay attention to more mundane issues such as labour conditions.There is concern about the artistic drain when the accession countries are integrated in Europe. As an example, the HungarianSymphonic Orchestra currently holds the best Hungarian musicians, but when the European Union opens up, it is likely therewill be an exodus when they see that they can earn ten times the salary in a western country. Perhaps a practical solution wouldbe a fund to top up wages/salaries.

Ugo Bacchella noted the importance of civil society and “joined up” civil society action.Luba Blaškovičova added that a fund was needed to support companies that are participating in culture 2000 programmes

or the like because they could not co-operate if they are not sustainable for the duration of the project.

9

1B – MEDIA AND CINEMACHAIR: IRINA BOULIN-GHICA, Head of European and International Affairs Department of the Prime Minister’sOffice, Paris, France / SPEAKER: WOLFGANG CLOSS, Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg

Ms Boulin-Ghica highlighted three main challenges for the future of Europe:1. Integrated internal market – culture should not be forgotten because it is on culture that we build our values and it is a

pity that Europe started with coal and steel and not with culture2. Enlargement – culture is even more important in this attempt to re-unify a continent that was divided. The fact is that there

are many peoples in Europe but that there is still such thing as one European identity. Though we are diverse we sharesomething common from the history. The cultural diversity is one of the main and fundamental values of democracy.

3. Globalization – it has both positive and negative aspects. It creates interesting markets but should not represent thedeath of cultural diversity. This is particularly sensitive issue in the field of media or audio-visual.

Culture stands for identity, it comes before the act of creation, it transports values and identity. Eventually culture becomessomething that has economic value but it never becomes just a product. The issue of cultural diversity has at least two aspects:

– cultural diversity as a goal / task– cultural exception (a French initiative) which is not defensive and protective but rather represents a way for opening

space for cultural productsMs Boulin-Ghica spoke about the principle of unanimity confirmed at the Nice summit, which should guarantee the con-

tinuation of the policy of cultural exception. The question remains as to which steps should be taken in order to integrate theseconcerns for the protection of diversity in the European Convention. One solution would be to add the whole chapter to theTreaty or include new provisions in article 151, which is at the moment based on subsidiarity. Another option is to open discus-sion on articles 86 and 87 dealing with the state aid.

Wolfgang Closs believes that the media should be discussed within the framework of cultural diversity. It is sometimes diffi-cult to defend that issues related to the audio-visual sector should be discussed within the framework of culture. Mr. Closs pre-sented the work of the European Audio-Visual Observatory. The European Commission itself is one of the 35 members of theObservatory. In today's Europe, there exists some 500 laws that regulate audio-visual sector (broadcasting, film, video and DVD,and new media) and that there are more than 250 different funding programs.

DISCUSSION

Rod Fisher spoke of the Ruffolo report and raised the concern on how secure this unanimity clause was in light of the factthat the WTO negotiations were not in the competence of culture ministers but of the ministers responsible for trade.

Vera Boltho mentioned Euroimages as an important institution because it includes both production and distribution. Thereis also the Convention on Co-production in Cinema, the Declaration on Cultural Diversity as well as other protective measuresboth within the Council of Europe and the European Union.

Ms Boulin-Ghica pointed out that there is a great difference between the treatment of goods under the GATT and servicesthat fall under GATS.

Risto Kivelä highlighted that in this process of integration into the common market there are many implications for candi-date countries to be aware of.

Kazimierz Krzysztofek highlighted that cultural diversity was fundamental for democracy and that it was directly linked withthe issue of social cohesion. He questioned the principle of cultural exception in new media, especially interactive television.

Delia Mucica thought that special attention should be placed on linguistic issues in the distribution of cultural products(translations, dubbing, etc.). Another limiting factor aside from the possible lack of interest is related to costs and the fact thatcandidate countries are still not eligible for all EU funding programmes. Another issue to highlight was the position of inde-pendent producers.

At the end of the workshop an idea of introducing special supporting mechanisms for student films was presented by an UKrepresentative. He argued that young people, at least in UK, are very diverse and that as a consequence, if properly supported,they will produce films which will reflect this diversity.

1C – CULTURAL HERITAGECHAIR: GEOFFREY BROWN, Director, Euclid, London / SPEAKER: SANJIN DRAGOJEVIĆ, Faculty of Political Science, Zagreb

Since 1983, a greater concern for culture has been shown within the EU at the time when the notion of the European citizenarises. Core values are identified which are part of the cultural identity: freedom, democracy, tolerance and solidarity are thebasis for the preservation of cultural diversity in Europe. Three tendencies arose within the EU:

10

1. to be more and more inclusive of cultural matters, including the financing aspects;2. in the form of an overall framework, to facilitate cultural issues within one programme – Culture 2000;3. the importance of the digital issues of culture, and the interrelationship between e-culture and cultural heritage.

Some ten years ago, the EU used to bypass discussions on culture, particularly because of financial matters, but now thesituation is changed. Culture 2000 sets priority areas, one of which is cultural heritage. An example in this area is the EU Prizefor Cultural Heritage Preservation, which covers:

a) restoration of single buildings or the complex of buildings with the intention to use or re-use it giving it some otherfunction, as for example in education;

b) preservation of landscape;c) preservation of private artistic objects to be presented for general public;d) preservation of archaeological sites;e) researchers in the field of cultural heritage;f) individuals or groups of people for their previous achievements in the field.

A number of research projects have been initiated in the field of cultural heritage, such as Save Art Projects, the Archaeo Pro-ject (focusing on climate changes) and projects concerning the seismic activities that can affect the cultural heritage. In the fieldof digital culture, a new initiative was born, the CULTIVATE programme, which connects e-culture and cultural heritage.

There exist other programmes in the fields of Education and Training (such as SOCRATES, TEMPUS, YOUTH); Informationsociety (e-culture, Information Society for All, e-continent, etc.); Regional and Structural Policy (Regional Development Fund,European Social Fund); Research and Development Programmes (ESPRIT, Telematics Application, etc.); Cooperation with ThirdCountries (PHARE, TACIS, MEDA). There are also specific EU agreements concerning technology or science but also involvingcultural heritage issues.

The basic questions are:1. What is the interrelationship between human and political developments in Europe, when talking about minority

groups, for example?2. What is the role of cultural heritage in economic and social development? (Can digital culture raise employment in the

field of cultural heritage?)3. What is the role of public sector, private sector and NGOs in cultural heritage issues and enlargement?

Geoffrey Brown stated that we would all agree that cultural heritage was not in itself a controversial subject: heritage has tobe preserved and therefore, it needs support. Since the EU is an economic engine, the question is how can heritage take advan-tage of opportunities that may not be specifically focused on heritage itself. Is it realistic for eastern European countries toconsider the EU as a source for funding their cultural heritage?

Pavel Černoch suggested it is a question of perspective: while the material heritage may well get help from the EU, the issueis how EU cultural programmes can strengthen cultural identities. How can we make people feel more European throughpreserving their national identities ?

Karel Mulder asked about how to deal with financing in practice? It is easy to establish a programme like Culture 2000, but inpractice it’s difficult to lead a project to a successful conclusion due to a lack of co-financing. It can be very difficult to find spon-sors. The Cultural Contact Points were mentioned as places where potential projects can get advice. Other options includefinding other enthusiasts, benefactors, commercial sponsors, or support in kind. Funding from other sectors and trans-nationalpartnerships were seen as a new trend since local or national support is often lacking. Jon Price (Northumbria University, Cul-tural Management Unit, Newcastle upon Tyne) expressed the fear that chasing the finance just makes things more Europeanisedand does not help to preserve national identities.

Mr Mulder also noted that there are projects which do not fit easily in any of the above mentioned categories within the EUprogrammes. Where does one apply for a musicology project, for example ? EU cultural heritage categories are limited and donot cover many aspects of cultural heritage, such as immaterial, or intangible heritage. Therefore, there is still the issue offinding sponsors from elsewhere.

Katalin Wollák expressed her fear about the position of cultural heritage in the future Europe in the light of the regulationsfor protection of cultural goods. She wanted to hear the experiences of the countries who are already in the EU.

Peter Curman stressed that in the time of great changes, cultural heritage becomes very important. One can never claim toposses his/her own culture. Programmes of cooperation are needed more than ever and a wall in the area of culture should notbe built around new countries. Culture should be allowed and preserved.

Sanjin Dragojević provided the Slovenian example: agencies have been created which help potential projects. These agenciesadvise those who have project ideas but don’t know how to finalise the project. Investors give financial support to such agencies,which then support projects. It was suggested that this role might be given to CCPs, although some felt this may not be the bestsolution because they only focus on the Culture 2000 programme. Still, there may be a next stage…

11

PLENARY 2

CULTURE AND REFORMING OF EUROPEAN GOVERNANCECHAIR: DRAGAN KLAIĆ, President of EFAH, Amsterdam

SPEAKERS: PAVEL ČERNOCH, Jean Monnet Lecturer, Charles University, Prague / MARY ANN DeVLIEG, Director ofIETM, Brussels / RACHEL GUGLIELMO, Project Director, Open Society Institute, Budapest

This is a very ambitious topic. How to make the complex process of European integration more manageable with re-spect to culture is a very difficult question. As opposed to the far-reaching promises about accession to the EuropeanUnion, there may well be an institutional blockade instead. Much depends on how the upcoming Convention is going towork. Will civil society get a greater say in the institutional reform of the EU? How many new members will the EU takeon? How will the structural funds be utilised in the regions, and to what extent will they be used for culture?

The EU is obsessed with the building up of EU identity, while among the candidate countries scepticism and evenhostility characterises attitudes towards the idea of a united Europe. Therefore it is very important to draw attention tothe inclusive and divisive capacities of culture even within the EU.

Pavel Černoch noted that the Europe we want is very different from the one that we have. The EU is about financinglinked to a political process, and we have to handle this as an opportunity ahead of us. The EU will not do things for us,unless we are courageous enough and create initiatives. As physical borders are disappearing, an active culturalapproach is needed. EU integration serves the purpose of changing mental attitudes. It exerts pressure on people tomake them think in dimensions in which they have not thought before. A very basic example for this is a pressure forpeople to learn English.

But how can this all be relevant for culture? Culture is what binds Europe into this common space. However, what wesee in our shared history is that culture was used to serve national interests and to turn nations against one another. Aunited Europe should be the guarantee that this will not happen again. It is noted that culture can go where politics andthe economy cannot enter. The EU is able to impact beyond its borders, and culture is the only means of overcoming thenotion of “fortress Europe”. We have to work on ways in which Europe can enter our lives. We do not have to reinvent thewheel, but we do need to be brave and experiment. To start with, two languages should be mandatory in all accessioncountries, and priority should be given to mobility above all other things.

Mary Ann DeVlieg, admitted to providing a “subjective and unscientific” speech to outline reforms necessary in theEU:

– The EU should set up a commission to monitor the language and words used when speaking about theintegration process. Some words are ready to go into the garbage. The word „diversity” is one such word. Itcould be replaced by „respect” or by „curiosity”, in order to eliminate the contradiction in terms betweenintegration and diversity. The word „visibility” should be redefined, as it actually means a change in attitudeover a period of time.

– Another commission should be set up to monitor the level of curiosity in the people of the Member States. Thosecountries where interest in the EU drops below a certain level, should be sanctioned.

– Mental reforms are also necessary in order to stop the Member States from pursuing their national interests,and to make them start working for common goals.

– The acquis communitaire is far too big. Taking it seriously would demand several changes. This applies to theimplementation of Article 151 as well.

– The EU should have a cultural policy or a cultural program because there is a need for a real framework.It should be simple, based on subsidiarity, but it should require active participation on behalf of MemberStates.

– The EU should forget about prizes – these should be left to sponsors.– The bottom-up flow of information should be encouraged.– The EU should see not only to what people want to do in the cultural field but also to how they want to do

things.

12

– In the Council of Ministers, “thought control” should be introduced. Those ministers who pursue narrownational interests need to be replaced.

– In the European Parliament, a mandatory IQ test should be introduced before membership.– The role of the media should be increased, and debates should more frequently be televised.– People sitting in the Commission should have worked in the sector for which they are responsible for 5 years.– The major issue in thinking about institutional reforms in the EU is: what place for civil society?

Rachel Guglielmo explained that the Open Society Institute (OSI), Budapest had established a program in 2000 toassess the impact of the EU accession process on policy development within states, recognising that there were very fewguidelines available. The starting point was that while the Commission considers the fulfilment of the political criteria asa precondition for accession, the fact is that the political criteria are ideals and they can never actually be met. The OSI’sEU Accession Program has developed a monitoring mechanism for selected aspects of the accession process, where insome cases there are no standards available. The programme contributes to the Commission’s own evaluations, fosterspublic awareness of the accession process generally and of the political criteria in particular, and underlines theimportance of independent monitoring as a necessary tool for the consolidation of a free society both during theaccession process and beyond.

It is civil society organizations that should assess the process. The programme also engages people from thecandidate countries in the assessment process. The finalised reports are presented not only to the Commission but to thegeneral public as well. The basic aim was twofold: to encourage input from the candidate countries, and to provoke somethought in the Commission as well. However, culture is unfortunately one of the insufficiently explored elements of thepolitical criteria.

DISCUSSION

Are we facing a window of opportunity in terms of EU integration? It seems that there is not enough thorough think-ing on the cultural aspect of EU integration. They need us, and we also need them. This was unfortunately not reflected atthis conference as the EU was not involved. In this way we are missing opportunities. However, the EU misses opportuni-ties as well.

“Ours is a strong identity but by no means a homogeneous identity. Hungarian identity is actuallya diverse identity of several cultures and in the best periods of our history, of our cultural and historicdevelopment we have been able to make the most of these various cultures and their contributions toour culture and identity. And this is, I think, the greatest contribution that we can make and that wewant to make to a truly united Europe. What makes it very natural and very easy for us to join the EUis that we find there the same diverse culture and the same richness and the same strength in diversitythat we can find in our own culture.”

Béla Szombati at the Opening Plenary

13

WORKSHOP SESSIONS2A – CULTURE 2000CHAIR: AGNE

. MARTIKONIENE

., Head, Lithuanian Cultural Contact Point, Vilnius / SPEAKER: THEODOSSIOS

MASTROMINAS, Principal Administrator, European Commission, Brussels

Culture 2000 is a growing program accessible to 28 countries at the moment. From next year on it will be accessible to Maltaand Cyprus as well, which will make the number of beneficiaries 30. Culture 2000 is not a structural fund as it deals with EUprojects and not with national ones. It does not subsidise projects on the national level but national authorities may be involvedto implement projects on a national or regional level. The program unit itself has nothing to do with the selection of projects,which is done by a group of experts, who make recommendations to the Commission. The EP also has the opportunity toexpress its opinion. It takes a long time until decisions are made.

The program encourages cooperation. Cultural Contact Point offices were established in order to help cultural operators intheir countries contact cultural operators of other countries. Projects should have a European added value, and should notrepeat something that has already been realised. The program also provides support for mobility.

There is very strict control over who gets money for what, and for this reason the program is often criticised for being toorigid. Still, Culture 2000 is a huge possibility for the candidate countries to start training themselves to be able to meet the EUcriteria. Unfortunately in the cultural sphere nobody cares for the preparation for accession but Culture 2000 serves exactly thispurpose. It offers a lesson to be learned.

DISCUSSION

The following points were made by the audience for this workshop:– There should be a feasibility phase built into the procedure.– The Commission should do something about delays in contracting and making payment.– The first payment should be more than 50% given the lengthy delay that exists in receiving the final payment– The deadlines should be set earlier.– A special mobility fund should be set up within Culture 2000.– The program should target “not yet candidate” countries as well.– In order to respond to cultural initiatives, enthusiasm is needed on both sides, and this is not the case when one is

faced with administrators.– Culture 2000 is a generous programme overall.– Culture 2000 was planned for 4 years in advance. However in the meantime several new members will join the EU. Has

the Commission taken this into account?

2B – THE FUTURE OF OTHER EU INITIATIVES AND THE TRANS-NATIONAL FUNDSCHAIR: JOSÉ PÉREZ LÁZARO, Deputy Director, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, Spain / SPEAKER:GEOFFREY BROWN, Euclid, Liverpool

This workshop was introduced by José Pérez, who gave a brief introduction to the three main priorities of the Spanish Presi-dency concerning culture. These can be summarised as:

1. Reflection on the implementation means of article 151 – it is ten years since a legal base for culture was implementedand so reflection and debate are proposed. Reflection is expected on the measures so far taken and still needed to im-plement article 151.

2. The application of new technologies for our heritage – an aim of the presidency is to link better information / knowl-edge based systems to heritage. Particular emphasis will be given to digital content of our heritage for future genera-tions.

3. The production and dissemination of European cinema – discussion is planned on the circulation and distribution ofEuropean cinema, giving attention to legal aspects of the sector, classifications and supported initiatives. The aim is todevelop dialogue and cultural exchanges through cinematic projects both within the EU and with other geographicalregions such as Latin America and the Caribbean countries.

Geoffrey Brown noted that the key priorities of the EU are to increase competitiveness and encourage co-operation and col-laboration. Through a number of charts and graphs, the low amount of funds earmarked for culture was demonstrated. EUexpenditure can be broken down:

14

45% – spent on agricultural policy35% – structural funds1% – culture, training, youth, audio-visual, media, information and other social operations, including:0.1% – culture

However, it was also noted that 80% of the EU money coming for culture into the UK, for example, comes from the structuralfunds.

Broad distinctions between the structural funds and trans-national funds were then noted:Structural Funds (including the ERDF and ESF community initiatives):

1. geographically focussed2. partners not needed3. local decision making (i.e. local and regional committees decide on goals and criteria)4. large funds can be accessed5. focus on capital works or people based activities

Trans-national Funds:1. pan-European focus2. partners from different countries essential3. decisions made in Brussels4. small to medium size grants5. focus on projects (1–3yrs maximum – i.e. not revenue funding)

The Trans-National Funds include Culture 2000, Media Plus, Leonardo da Vinci, Socrates, Youth, Life III (environment), NewTechnologies and Research (through the 5th framework programme) and other programmes such as the minority languagesprogramme and programmes through external relations which support links with countries outside the EU.

These latter include the Phare programme which is helping accession countries in the process leading to EU enlargement. Intheory, when the enlargement process is complete, the Phare funds will be replaced by structural funds. However, in theory thestructural funds will also one day disappear when all regions of Europe have obtained a minimum economic level.

5,35% of the structural funds are dedicated to the Community Initiatives:– INTERREG – support for cross border collaborations– URBAN – support for regeneration projects in urban areas– LEADER – support for development in rural areas– EQUAL – for new ways of tackling exclusion, discrimination and inequality in relation to the labour market.

The trans-national and structural funds will be most important for culture and therefore there should be lobbying to makeculture more important within these programmes.

DISCUSSION

Mr Kivelä said that there was another difference between the structural and trans-national funds to do with how objectivesare set within these programmes:

– Trans-national funds have culture, quality and added European value as criteria– Structural funds have regional development, job creation and regeneration as criteria

While the breadth of cultural projects supported by the structural funds is exciting there is little visibility for culture. JordiPascual wanted cultural projects that won funding from the structural or the trans-national funds to be better identified. He saidthat visibility of these cultural projects was important and maybe this should be the job of an observatory of culture and/orshould be part of an EU portal for culture. He said that monitoring and visibility are needed otherwise culture will never be adriving force.

The group heard of some efforts to identify cultural projects supported by the structural funds such as EUCLID’s proposedCulture Tracker service, and the group were told how difficult it was to secure and update this information.

A number of participants stressed the need to support mobility and cultural exchange, and Jennifer Williams indicated thatthe Centre for Creative Communities was currently surveying policies that encourage cross-sector collaborations.

15

PLENARY SESSION 3

EU REGIONAL POLICY: THE PLACE OF CULTURE IN THE STRUCTURAL FUNDSCHAIR: RITVA MITCHELL, ERICArts, Helsinki

SPEAKERS: COLIN MERCER, Centre for Cultural Policy Research, University of Nottingham / ANDREAS WIESAND,ERICArts, Bonn / CORINA ŞUTEU, ECUMEST, Bucharest

Ritva Mitchell identified the role of this Plenary as being to answer the question ‘What are the implications ofstructural funding for the cultural sector?’ The Structural Funds can change the way we think about cultural policies andcultural development. The cultural sector is forced to think in another way: Structural Funds normally help some othersectors, such as urban or rural development for example, and culture is often included under some other headings(development, sustainability, tourism, etc.). Culture is actually “disguised” in order to be applicable for funding. That iswhy the cultural sector must cooperate with other partners / sectors, which previously has not been the case.

Colin Mercer explained that Structural Funds have been used for:– Incubating cultural industry businesses;– Providing flexible education and training;– Providing venture capital funding;– Establishing cultural/creative industry development services on a partnership process between local and

regional authorities, education and training, etc.;– Encouraging cross-sectoral policy and planning frameworks at local and regional levels linking physical,

economic, social and cultural regeneration and development strategies.Structural Funds have established preconditions for “joined up thinking”, have enabled the consolidation of a level of

local and regional decision making and strategic planning, and have enabled us to think and practice cultural policy as aneconomic policy, an employment policy, a regeneration policy. Therefore, they have helped to integrate a cultural dimen-sion into broader strategic planning frameworks. This has acted as a powerful incentive to cross-sectoral, multidiscipli-nary, and cross-cutting policy and planning ‘architectures’ at local and regional levels.

Andreas Wiesand wanted to firstly consider a methodological problem: how to measure development? Not only GDPacts as an indicator of successful development but a quality of life in a broader sense. Therefore, the culture and mediasectors must gain a more prominent place in the EU Structural Funds. One solution could be to adopt a ‘culturalmainstreaming strategy’. Accession countries should be prepared for the type of planning, fund management andevaluation which is commonly employed in connection with the EU Structural Funds in the present Member States. It isnecessary to overcome political opposition to an extension of the Structural Funds programme after 2006, which wouldalso benefit applicant countries.

Corina Şuteu identified the Structural Funds as instruments of development, which are not supposed to beoperational. They can be good instruments if we understand the context we live in, and the context should bedetermined by the cultural sector. The way Structural Funds or PHARE are implemented may prove to be “operationallyeffective” but there is no evidence yet of their regional impact or of their capacity to create partnerships between civilsociety and private sector. Generally, a mistrust in regional expertise is also present, which deepens the negative imagewe already have about east-central European societies compared to the West. There is a lack of knowledge among thewider public about the accession process: this process should be made more understandable for all cultural players, andexplained through education, media, and civil society.

DISCUSSION

Pirkko Rainesalo presented the Finnish case of estimated EU support benefiting the cultural sector and concludedthat Structural Funds will be even more important for accession countries.

Pavel Černoch wanted to know why east-central European experts are project team leaders since in many cases fundshave been misused. The answer from Andreas identified similar cases in the West, also.

16

WORKSHOP SESSIONS3A – URBAN CULTURECHAIR: PÉTER INKEI, Director, Budapest Observatory / SPEAKER: MARIANNA KAJANTIE, Helsinki Municipality

Marianna Kajantie introduced the focus as exploring the cultural aspects or the role of culture in urban development. Ms Ka-jantie gave an overview of some projects and activities launched and realised under the patronage, or through the initiative, ofHelsinki Municipality. She presented some general data regarding funding, especially distribution of funds from the Municipalbudget. She also spoke about projects that were funded through the structural funds (including the Community Initiatives:Urban I and II, Equal). It is obvious that the cultural segment of urban development can be funded from various sources. MsKajantie expressed her belief that culture would find its place in structural funds more often in the future.

DISCUSSION

One of the first issues raised was the trend of serious cuts in local budgets and the effect on the preservation of cultural insti-tutions. It was highlighted that cultural institutions had to adapt to the changed context. It seems that few cultural institutionsbenefit from the structural funds, but they might receive some funding though Culture 2000. In this context the phenomenon of„institutional fatigue” was raised. In addition, the anachronistic typology of cultural institutions dating back to the 19th centuryrequires new forms of policy – the „opened door policy” as mentioned by one of the speakers. Innovative financing schemes,such as structural funds, might help to overcome this situation and provoke the reshaping of cultural institutions.

It is obvious that culture should be a very important segment of urban development, but it is a task of Ministries of Cultureand others active in this sector to initiate changes. The EU policy agenda, both at the EU and national level, is about equality,social cohesion or civil society, which all refer to culture as a key element. The cultural sector should realise that it is an integralpart of society. It is very often the case that other sectors want to introduce a cultural dimension in order to add value to theirprojects and priorities.

The lack of policies that would, in a systematic way, address the role of culture in urban development was obvious from ex-amples observed in several countries regarding arts projects in former industrial areas. Very often artists take over some run-down areas and turn them into interesting centers for the arts. The process that follows is that the area, once neglected – andcheap in terms of rental costs – becomes attractive for investors. Consequently there is a rise of rental and other related costs inthat area. Eventually artists can no longer afford to stay in those re-born neighborhoods even though they were the ones whoinitiated the regeneration process. Is there a policy that could address this? It is obvious that a process of urban regeneration hasto establish links with relevant sectors and areas of development.

Another important dilemma is the sustainability of the trend of decentralization when local authorities are entrusted withnew responsibilities without adequate financial support. The trend of decentralization is not always in line with taxation poli-cies that often remain the exclusive privilege of the central government or state.

Still, at the end of the working group it was highlighted that there is a reason for optimism because five or six years ago cul-ture was not mentioned at all in any of the EU funding programs and the situation today is much better.

3B – CULTURE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTCHAIR: PIRKKO RAINESALO, Counsellor for Cultural Affairs, Ministry of Education, Finland / SPEAKER: CLAUDEVÉRON, Director, Relais-Culture-Europe, Paris

This workshop aimed to identify problems and opportunities within the structural funds. The definition of culture was con-sidered an area of difficulty when defining cultural led projects within the structural funds. In one country culture would meanone thing and in another it would be something quite different. This is one reason why making a study of cultural projectssupported by the structural funds is so difficult – even on the funding application forms culture is disguised under headings suchas “local” or “development”.

Claude Véron introduced two European cultural projects that he is personally engaged with and he talked about how theseprojects had mobilised structural funds under article 6 of the ESF funds. One problem with these funds is that there is a lack ofinformation available about the projects funded. There is also little in the way of follow-up and management of projects fundedby the structural funds.

There is no legal basis or document that allows for culture to be considered within the structural funds. However, culture canbe funded if it is part of a development project for the region. Some participants called for a new recognition of the arts andcultural sector while others warned that currently culture does not have a profile and therefore arts and cultural projects arebeing urged to “smuggle” themselves in under other headings to do with development issues.

17

Claude pointed out that decisions on the criteria for funding for the structural funds are taken at three different territoriallevels before the final programme arrives at a grass-roots level. European Union, national and then regional or local levels ofadministration have their input before cultural organisations can even apply for funding. He suggested that the structural fundsshould only be administered at a regional level and others felt that, not only should you be able to apply at a regional level, youshould be able to apply in your own language.

In France there are 26 regions with many differences in approach. It was interesting however that the French Presidentwrote to the regions and stressed culture as a driving force to be included in the criteria for the allocation of the structural fundsat the regional level: the regions were told “not to forget culture”. One participant from the floor suggested that we should askCommissioner Viviane Reding to write to the presidents of all states urging them to do the same. It was considered that thiswould be a great stimulus, particularly for regions in the accession countries

The question of monitoring the effects of cultural projects for regional development was raised. We know that culturalprojects can attract visitors who in turn provide work and custom for restaurants, hotels and other surrounding businesses. Howto monitor this is less clear – it is a problem of long-term measurement.

The Ruffolo Report asks for an EU observatory and it was suggested that one aim might be for this observatory to study thestructural funds.

It was suggested that the criteria for these funding calls should be written by people from the sector. It was pointed out thatothers, for example from small and medium size businesses and the transport sector, had been consulted on writing the criteriaand goals of the call. There was a clear recommendation that people from the arts and culture sector need to be at the tablewhen criteria for funding are being written.

It was made clear that the structural funds (apart from the INTERREG Community Initiative) are not for cross-bordercollaborations – the trans-national funds are for that.

The EU is in a management position by default because it has lots of money. The structural funds are temporary – in theorythey will be abolished when regions are all at a relatively even level of GDP and development. Then something will replace thestructural funds but we do not know what that will be.

It was suggested that the concept of a European Cultural Policy would be impossible before the structural funds disappear.

3C – CULTURAL TOURISMCHAIR: ILDIKÓ SZABÓ, Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Budapest / SPEAKER: FRANCESC BADIA, Interarts Foundation,Barcelona

Francesc Badia defined the concept of cultural tourism. The notion of cultural tourism developed recently but is widely usedin planning within the EU. Compared to mass tourism, cultural tourism represents “elite tourists”. Today’s researchers claim thatall tourism is cultural because the motivation for travelling is very difficult to be separated from culture. Almost every travellerhas culture as a background motivation.

Cultural tourism is the most rapidly growing type of tourism in the EU, which is also the most important cultural tourismconsumer. Some statistics of cultural tourism within the EU were presented which rank this type of tourism very high especiallyas an economic and social force, for example creating new jobs. Since there is an increase in leisure time and in the generaloverall level of education, it is realistic to expect the increase in cultural tourism activities.

The question remains: how to support these initiatives? There are those who think that tourism, being an importanteconomic generator, needs no funding at all as it is self-sustainable. Still, cultural tourism needs seed capital for which StructuralFunds might be of great importance. The Fifth Framework Programme can be another way of financing cultural tourism projectssince it includes key elements for the development of the city, its identity, buildings, quality of life, attractiveness, etc. Culture2000 is also a fund which supports such projects.

A shift from the SSS (Sun, Sand and Sea) tourism has been made to the big C tourism (Culture), which can have a great rolein making Europe Bigger, Better and Beautiful.

DISCUSSION

Ildikó Szabó spoke of a great change in Hungarian tourism policy. Culture is seen to have the potential to attract moresupport in economic terms, especially from the tourism sector. Special competitions have been organised for museums, in areasof the marketing of world heritage sites, etc. Some 50 million has been spent recently on the cultural tourism sector.

Sonia Greiner (Europa Cantat, Bonn) presented some German examples and said that every euro invested in culturaltourism comes back seven times. There is a lot for the accession countries to discover in this field.

Peter Curman (Swedish Joint Committee for Literary and Artistic Professionals, Stockholm) presented some Swedish cultural

18

tourism projects underlying their importance in extending the season for tourists. An issue of intimacy arouse, since there areevents that should not be shared with tourists such as weddings, funerals, baptism, etc.

A certain doubt in the benefits of events such as Cultural Capital was expressed: although they make economic profit andmake the city more lively and attractive, cultural workers / artists are often disappointed with them because they show artificialand not authentic culture. Often, such events are organised by private enterprise and not the city itself and due to bad planningor ignorance an inappropriate image is shown, which is not the same as that felt by the citizens themselves.

Miklós Marschall believes the wrong image is often promoted for the Central-Eastern European countries – which presentsthem as too cheap (it is a mixed blessing that erotic films are now made in Budapest and other central and eastern Europeanlocations). He also reported on a Hungarian World Heritage Site being in a film that presented Berlin with no acknowledgementthat this site was in fact in Hungary. He therefore thinks that cultural tourism is important because many accession countriesstruggle with the problem of overcoming the misperception that they are simply “cheap countries”.

Carla Bodo warned that careful planning of cultural tourism projects needs to be made in advance. A coordination betweensupply and demand has to be made.

Kazimierz Krzysztofek said that cultural tourism is sometimes a heritage industry and there is a danger of creating artificialheritage. He asked for EU experiences concerning theme parks – in response, Spain categorised their theme park as another typeof tourism, and not cultural.

Paul Kelly stressed the importance of linking grass roots and policies since culture is driven from the grass roots.Francesc Badia explained that the EU integrated approach consists of:

– shaping a local distinctive image;– qualified employment;– production of economic externalities;– increasing of local culture and education activities.

A need to create an image for accession countries was stressed. It is a long process but is worth taking. Rural tourism wasidentified as being of great potential since most of a nation’s culture originates from these roots. It was noted that tourism doesnot consist in selling spaces but selling stories and that therefore there is a need for the animation of cultural heritage places.Museums are not museums any more but places for interpretation.

“I am convinced that the enlarged EU will not be any bigger but rather greater. Cultural diversity ona larger scale means not only a larger number of cultures present on the stage, it means another viewbased on greater understanding and larger horizons. Let us not ask what benefits we shall gain fromthe enlarged EU, let us rather state that the EU will no doubt benefit culturally from enlargement.”

Orsolya Kőrösi at the Closing Plenary

19

PLENARY SESSION 4

CULTURAL CO-OPERATION AND MOBILITY IN AN ENLARGED EUROPETHIS SESSION WAS ORGANISED INCONJUNCTION WITH CIRCLE (CULTURAL INFORMATION ANDRESEARCH CENTRES LIAISON IN EUROPE)CHAIR: DOROTA ILCZUK, President of Circle, Warsaw

SPEAKERS: ROD FISHER, Director, International Intelligence on Culture, London / ROBERT LACOMBE, Deputy Direc-tor, French Institute, Budapest / KAZIMIERZ KRZYSZTOFEK, Professor of Sociology, University of Białystok, Poland

This session aimed to address a number of questions regarding mobility and the exchange of both cultural practitio-ners and cultural goods in and throughout the European Union and Central and Eastern Europe (CEE).

Dorota Ilczuk introduced the theme with three principal questions: are we ready to collaborate in Europe? do we havethe tools to collaborate? and do we have a common language to aid our collaboration?

She pointed out that these points are interesting not just for pre-accession CEE countries but also for fully fledgedmembers of the EU. Two topics dominate discussion in pre-accession countries however and these are 1) how to makelegal structures to support exchange and dialogue and 2) how to absorb money in a clearly defined manner. Dorotachallenged the audience to look for new initiatives such as an EU lobby for culture. She firmly supported this idea due tothe fact that culture has a minimised status in EU discussions today.

The European Union was considered as an important tool for fostering mobility but not the first. We were asked toremember that cultural networks have been operating for many years, exchanging, facilitating mobility and offeringcross-cultural dialogue. Therefore as cultural operators we should use the potential of existing cultural and artistic net-works to stimulate mobility and support the aim to improve the status of the networks which are, after all, the mostobvious meeting points for European artistic practitioners. Furthermore, Dorota reminded us, the networks have beenoperating for many years and have built a trust and language agreement during this time, the implication being that theyare the most prepared for cultural dialogue. Networks, she said, are also full of positive people who are ready and able toculturally co-operate.

Rod Fisher reminded us that there is already a global audience for culture. With the penetration of satellite and cableTV, globalisation has accelerated, eroding geographical barriers and providing cultural exchange. He challenged us thatdespite concerns about globally marketed cultural goods – these global goods promote a global unity more than anywell-meaning political policy. Consumerism he stated, binds us together.

Rod went on to give us a brief European “theatrical” history, in order to demonstrate that many of the concerns wehave now are reflected in our past and so we can learn by looking at our history. He pointed out that in 1991 exchangewith the west was the only aim coming from CEE Europe but now change is occurring and we gradually see more andmore East-East exchanges. This was viewed as very positive and similar to Nordic collaborations or Mediterranean col-laborations that strengthen the sub-European area and build common grounds.

The Ruffolo Report calls for an end to the paralysis on culture, and calls for a EU cultural policy. Rod Fisher shared hisdoubts about the use of this, again drawing on his experience from the past and the 1984 European declaration whichwas ineffective.

Despite a 1999 resolution on mobility, Rod Fisher pointed out that there are still enormous problems with regards toissues such as tax arrangements, job information, salary differences, social protection etc. Moreover Rod Fisher said thatthere was a lack of investment in people with ideas and called for a ‘risk fund’ – which would be used to invest in peoplewith new ideas. Rod said also that the lack of value that is currently placed on networking is having a detrimental effecton mobility in Europe. Rod concluded that if we understand that integration is an on-going project then we can under-stand the importance of cultural mobility.

Robert Lacombe spoke about mobility as witnessed and promoted from a foreign institute, in his case the FrenchInstitute, Budapest. He pointed out that EU co-operation was not the objective of foreign institutes, however he felt thatthrough his work he could give a perspective as an outsider working in CEE. He felt that CEE countries considered

20

themselves and are considered by others to be the other half of Europe. There is a strong sense that Europe is cut in twoand that there are two identities. However, he asked us to move away from this idea. After all, cultural co-operation doesnot start with the EU. There are many cultural organisations and networks that have existed much longer than the EU.There should be a renovation of the cultural networks that have been active for many years.

In addition to EU cultural exchange, there is state support for cultural co-operation and dialogue, albeit alongside theunderlying political objectives of this type of exchange. In order to support more mobility, he questioned what theimpact of all these mobility programmes are, particularly when artists return home? He then went on to discuss practicalproblems hindering mobility such as the seven year freeze on labour movement imposed by Austria and Germany whichmight restrict also the movement of artists. Finally, he identified cultural tourism as a new area that fosters exchange anddialogue and asked for help in identifying attractive programmes and exploiting existing systems and resources.

Kazimierz Krzysztofek, provided a philosophical discourse upon the role of culture. The role of culture will increasewhen symbolic differences are taken away – they will be replaced by culture in an anthropological and sociologicalcontext. The multi-cultural face of culture will change because of pressures to support multi-culturalism. Cultural policyin this last century has moved in two directions:

1. Culture as a nation state building tool – used to give high arts prestige.2. Culture as used to provide a European education to the masses

This second strand of cultural policy is no longer legitimate. Intellectuals are no longer in touch with what the masseswant. We can no longer impose but must respond to the wishes of the masses.

Kazimierz took issue with the idea that the internet is the new tool of globalisation. It is a clearly universal tool butone which is more and more nationalised – using a variety of languages and letters. He even cited the advantages of theinternet – saying that he could search for information related to Slovak culture much more easily in Slovak than in Eng-lish. He rather saw the internet as a good tool for smaller countries. He went on to ask what levels of democratisationwould inter-active TV bring? He concluded by asking if CEE have an opportunity for cultural communication? He asked ifCEE countries needed a European sub space or whether it was sufficient to be merged into the western Europe.

DISCUSSION

Andreas Wiesand pointed out that there is more cultural mainstreaming for culture and development. He added thatfunds for solidarity should not be one-way streets. He used the Nordic countries as a good example of a European sub-space for cultural collaboration, whereby Nordic countries collaborate extensively for common cultural programmes andare successful.

Miklós Marschall noted that small CEE regions used to co-operate and he hoped that this would start again.Kirill Razlogov suggested that Europe is much more culturally divided North-South than East-West. He pointed out

that we already have a number of cultural policies at many levels from EU, nation state, region, city and arts sector. Whatis important is that we must convey our messages clearly to national and European funding bodies. To do that, we needto be sure about the results of mobility.

Another participant noted that in terms of an enlarged Europe, there are now increased possibilities for CEEcountries to participate in exchange and dialogue but do they consider themselves equal enough to join in the debatesand dialogue ? The analogy used was that CEE countries are rather like friends invited to join others at the cinema butthen, they sleep through the film and are not able to take part in the conversation and debate after the film. CEEcountries were therefore asked to consider that they are equal partners in the debate and dialogue for the future Europe.

“Quindi quello che accade con l’integrazione europea è per l’Ungheria un ritorno della sua storia enella logica della sua storia dentro l’Europa. Ma deve essere un ritorno con un paracadute che sia diimpedire l’accaduta della sua civiltà per identificarsi con un immagine che sia identica a quella di al-tre grandi cittá europee...”

Vittorio Sgarbi at the Closing Plenary

21

WORKSHOP SESSIONS4A – STATE ADMINISTRATIONS AND INTER-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONSCHAIR: VESNA ČOPIČ, Deputy State Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Ljubljana / SPEAKER: COSTIS DALLAS, Professor,Panteion University, Athens

At the beginning of the workshop, Ms. Čopič expressed her concern that this type of gatherings almost never tackled thegovernments and administrations, both national and international, who are very important players and whose role should besystematically analyzed.

In his introductory speech Mr. Dallas raised many questions relevant to the issue of cultural cooperation and mobility in anenlarged Europe, in particular related to the role of the state administrations and inter-governmental organizations. He startedwith the notion of culture and cultural cooperation and the dilemma of whether co-operation should focus on building commoncultural policies. How will relationships between the EU countries and countries outside the enlargement process evolve? Is itpossible to define mobility in European, rather than international, terms? Ministries of culture are different in scope outside thecore domain of cultural heritage and creativity, which represents another challenge for the predicted effect of EU cultural policyinstruments and practice. It is necessary to analyze if state administrations are changing adequately and to explore the role ofinternational and inter-governmental organizations in this process.

Building on an „active” understanding of subsidiarity, the question remains whether EU member states can develop strongermechanisms of information exchange and co-operation that bridge the national and EU level. It is however important to keep inmind all stakeholders (NGOs, national cultural institutions, cultural networks and organizations, cultural workers, artists, writ-ers as well as cultural industries) and observe the role of intergovernmental organizations relevant for them. It is crucial tointegrate cultural policies with social or media policies, to face the challenge of privatization and the EU's concept of regionsrelated to processes of decentralization. It is important to support the expansion of multilateral bridges beyond the EuropeanUnion. Special attention should be focused on the role of the Council of Europe. If an EU cultural policy becomes a reality, wouldthat render inter-governmental organizations such as the Council of Europe redundant, at least partially? Issues of culturalrights, cultural equity and cultural diversity should be put in the center of all debates.

DISCUSSION

In the discussion that followed participants reacted to the questions raised in the introduction. Reforming of European gov-ernments is one of the key issues. Everybody has to change. We should no longer talk about policies, but rather about the role ofgovernance (governments on all levels) as well as the private and the third sectors. In many countries there has been a shift ofemphasis and ministries of culture do not allocate funds any more but rather focus on the development of strategies. This is aradical change of the role of the ministries of culture, and operators trained to administer funds now have to become intellectu-als, policy planners and negotiators.

EU policies are also promoting this transversal thinking. Even though in many countries ministries still have the traditionalrole as principal funding bodies, they are facing many challenges related to policy planning and the development of strategies.As culture is not regarded as an EU priority it is in a way marginalised. A direct consequence of this lack of priority given toculture is the lack of technical assistance – although this is much needed, particularly in accession countries. One effort toovercome this situation was the focus of an application to the PHARE program. In Romania, for example, the Ministry of Culturereceived funds for institutional building and developing strategies for drafting new cultural policies.

4B – CULTURAL INDUSTRIESCHAIR: DELIA MUCICA, Media Division, Ministry of Culture, Bucharest / SPEAKER: JORDI PASCUAL I RUIZ, Institute ofCulture, Barcelona City Council

Starting with the title of this working group, Delia Mucica expressed her dissatisfaction, saying that “cultural industries” is asomewhat old-fashioned term focused on traditional artistic industries. A new term was proposed: creative industries, whichincorporates creative efforts including the software industry, advertising, audio-visual and new media content. Anotherseparation is felt when dividing these two terms: cultural industries are those which need subsidies, tax relief, fiscal andfinancial incentives in order to survive, while creative industries (software, new media, advertising) do very well without any ofthese. These separations also lead us to another one: high culture vs. mass culture.

All those industries operate in a legal environment. On one hand, there is specific, sectoral or the so called verticallegislation. These are the international legally binding instruments (copyright, tax legislation, labour legislation, etc.), which

22

have to be incorporated into national legislation. On the other hand there is general or transversal legislation (competition,fiscality – VAT) all related to a free international market. The greatest problem seems to be enforcing the existing legislation. Therole of the state is to formulate policies, adopt and enforce legislation (both vertical and transversal) taking into account thespecific problems and needs in each given country, such as linguistic areas of distribution, employment problems, financial andfiscal measures, incentives, even special support funds, mobility and cooperation.

When speaking of the three Bs (Bigger, Better, Beautiful), special attention needs to be drawn to the issue of mobility in anenlarged Europe. It is both applied to the free movement of goods and services but also to the free movement of cultural actors.A legal environment is needed allowing for the free movement of creators, covering the regulating of labour conditions, tradeunions, social protection, taxation (avoidance of double taxation), etc.

Jordi Pascual outlined the situation at the local level. Creative industries include TV, radio, newspapers, but also designers,tourism related business, shops, even food. The borders of the arts become smoother: for example, there are techno musicexperts or net artists today. There is a need for an inter-sectoral approach: the creative industries sector needs to includeeducation and training measures, labour and funding measures, policy measures, etc. It should cooperate with partners makinglinks to other sectors, and vice versa – all these need to increase their technological knowledge. The key actors in this processare the SMEs within the cultural system.

Local authorities have to provide universal services, they are responsible for creating a creative milieu and should linkculture with other sectors such as welfare, housing, transportation, etc. Their responsibility consists in creating an image of thecity.

The discussion opened with the issue of partnerships to be made stronger between cities. Via twinning of the cities, a lotcould be learned from others’ experience, especially on the subject of mobility. Still, Jordi doesn’t belive in twinnings but innetworks.

DISCUSSION

Jolyon Laycock stressed the need for sustainable projects. Jordi Pascual believes that there is no doubt that sustainability isimportant but it is very difficult to talk about sustainability in the sector of cultural industries. This sector is extremely dynamic,a new age is coming and certain projects are unlikely to exist more than three years or so because of the changing technologies,etc. Such projects should find their own way in the market after three or so years of support.

Paul Kelly stressed the problem of the cultural industries in east-central European countries now that the markets have beenprivatised. Cultural industries were state owned in CEE countries and now it is all privatised; completely new private enterpriseshave emerged, – for example, publishing houses appear and disappear as a consequence of the free market. He asked forpractical programmes to be highlighted that can help develop sustainable local creative industries. It was very difficult toidentify concrete projects, but a few examples in Barcelona were given, stressing the good practice of involving community inculture, which served as a creative activity and was felt as a way of life.

Jon Price stressed the need for public-private partnerships. He gave an example of an organization which operates on thisbasis helping people to develop their skills they are lacking.

Kazimierz Krzysztofek explained the logic which occurs in the east-central European countries: all that has been state ownedmust be privatised, it is a question of mentality, although it doesn’t necessarily have to be good. Another issue which isdetrimental for sustainable cultural development is that social partnerships often don’t work.

Colin Mercer outlined the dichotomy between the public and private sectors since privatization has occurred: culturalconsumption is in private sector, content of a library / opera / theatre is a product of a private sector. National economiesbecame myths.

Michael O’Donnell talked about the world wide web, which will become a very vast market in near future, freed from PCs.Limitless possibilities open up there for the sector of cultural industries. Delia Mucica recognised his statement but alsoexpressed her concern because there are some negative aspects of it – for example, threats to the protection of works publishedon the Internet (copyright, intellectual property).

Peter Miladinov expressed his concern for the preservation of cultural industries when part of the business world. Howcould they be used without losing their cultural value?

Paul Kelly does not put too much faith in the Internet since a lot of stuff presented there is only a reproduction of oldmaterial. New content should be encouraged on the Internet. This is why the public sector likes it, as it as an excellent source ofinformation, and the private sector doesn’t consider it as a threat.

23

4C – THIRD SECTOR ORGANISATIONS AND CIVIL SOCIETYCHAIR: LIDIA VARBANOVA Open Society Institute, Budapest / SPEAKER: UGO BACCHELA, President, FitzcarraldoFoundation, Torino

Lidia Varbanova gave a brief introduction to definitions of the “third sector” and to the principle differences between:1. Associations, networks, clubs etc. – which are based on links between people2. Foundations – which can be a source of funding and produce project led activities.

Lidia pointed out that in most CEE countries there has been an explosion of third sector activities. Before 1992 peopleformed in groups to actively organise things but 1992–1996 saw the real emergence of non-governmental organisations (NGOs).In Bulgaria there are around 6,000 registered NGOs and in Hungary 30,000. She points out that there are many more civilinitiatives that are not registered legally.

Lidia raised a number of issues for discussion including:– Money for and from the 3rd sector– What will happen with infrastructures and capacity building (differences).– People – what competencies and training do they need, mobility, volunteers– Legislation– Lobbying and decision-making– Programming and audiences – what are the products? Who are we delivering them to?

Ugo Bacchella then gave a short introduction to his foundation – which is an independent foundation with long-term part-nerships with funding bodies. He said that the arts and cultural sector had failed as a sector. The arts and culture has a socialdimension and therefore the arts and culture is part of civil society (what he termed as the domain between family and state ledor commercial activities). He said that it is within this space that most arts and cultural organisations are to be found.

Ugo believed that it was wrong to pressure for recognition of an arts and culture sector. He felt it is time to change our strat-egy and invest our time in building partnerships across the third sector. He felt that it would be much more impressive for thearts and culture to work across a broad spectrum of civil society concerns. He felt that we should join together and demandrecognition as a whole sector – the third sector. This he said would be much more beneficial – no longer an arts network askingfor money but a partnership of civil society organisations. Ugo gave examples of success stories using this strategy: where 12representatives from associations lobbied and changed a decision to cut funding to a festival. Those 12 people represented over130 associations.

All arts organisations fulfil public goals and all:– have low assets– don’t match traditional lines of funding– are fragile– not interested in the competencies of territorial – social issues

He proclaimed that there would be great benefits from new spaces and scope for building partnerships.He tried to answer the question of why a foundation model was a good one. He told us that there are more than 2,000,000

foundations in the EU, with political long-term policies. Ugo suggested that a number of measures were necessary to improve thearts and mobility including:

– “risk funds”– “pilot project to test policies”– “structural long term tools for long term strategies”– “collaborations”– “monitoring, evaluation”

He lamented the lack of communication between the arts and cultural non-profit organisations and other civil society initia-tives. He called for fewer meetings between arts and cultural organisations and more dialogue with other areas of civil society.

Mik Flood intervened that he felt there was a problem of definition – who do we align ourselves with, he asked. The public?Clarification is needed. He also called into question whether Italian laws made the foundation model so attractive and that hewanted to be clear that there are two different types of foundation – those that provide money and those that are project orien-tated. It was agreed that the “lack of co-operation” was depressing and we heard a call for a lobby for culture which would repre-sent networks and civil society.

Krassimira Teneva raised the point that special funds are needed for cultural production in CEE as arts organisations can’t beexpected to co-operate with their EU partners if they are not sustainable for the duration of the project.

It was suggested that European NGOs not EU institutions should manage EU funds.It was agreed that it would be a very pragmatic aim to support NGOs. It was pointed out that EFAH was already doing this

type of work, both lobbying and trying to find a dialogue with NGOs. However we were told that many networks also had a

24

difficult choice between co-operation and competition for limited resources. If networks or NGOs are applying for the samefunds then there can be rivalry instead of co-operation.

Roger Fox pointed out that not all cultural organisations could be part of civil society. In fact many are immune to the idea ofcivil society and social change, particularly larger arts organisations.

A number of participants expressed frustration at so much talk and so little action amongst us. It was felt that a practical so-lution is needed. The EU is not interested in enlargement from a cultural standpoint – in fact many states are trying to preventmoney sliding from west to east – so it is up to the NGOs to make bi-lateral and multi-lateral co-operation.

One practical goal for lobbying would be support for translation – which is needed if connections are to happen. To build co-operation an organisation only needs an e-mail and a foreign speaking staff member but this must be sustainable, as without theforeign speaking staff member the co-operation is lost. It was decided that it is time for the EU to take a stand on language learn-ing.

It was pointed out that most funding agencies for arts and culture do not fund the administration and office costs of an or-ganisation and this makes life increasingly difficult for cultural operators.

Also, EU grants often arrive much later than when the project is due to start. Bridging loans are needed to cover the periodbetween the contract starting and the money becoming available. Lidia pointed out that this is a new initiative of the SorosFoundation in Bulgaria where the legal system allows this type of action. These operate as a business loan but with low interestrates.

We were warned that the criteria for culture 2005 were being discussed now and so we must act if we are to influence ourministers. We were all asked to take the recommendations from the conference home and start to lobby our own ministers andEU representatives.

“This conference on the impact of European enlargement on culture has bigger, better and beauti-ful in its title. And it could be bigger Europe, better Europe, beautiful Europe. But also it could be big-ger expectations, better cultural environment and beautiful cultural life.”

Naima Balić at the Closing Plenary

25

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONSThe following is not a formal declaration from the overall conference, but rather a summary of key recommenda-tions that emerged from the discussions in various sessions, where support was evident from the majority of theparticipants.

1. There needs to be an EU vision for culture which encompasses:· A statement of strategic objectives,· A programme to support mobility,· A programme to support research and development,· Targeted production funding for accession countries,· An ending to Commission conceived “emblematic” cultural projects.

2. If the EU believes language diversity to be important, then translation programmes are crucial and should befunded.

3. The cultural sector should lobby a matrix of policy-makers, not just those from the cultural sector.4. The cultural sector should also pay attention to basic issues such as labour conditions, particularly in the CEE

countries (noting that a practical solution would be a fund to top up wages/salaries in CEE countries).5. Regarding Culture 2000:

· A possible feasibility phase should be explored,· More needs to be done about delays in contracting and making payment,· The first payment should be more than 50% given the lengthy delay that exists in receiving the final payment,· The deadlines should be set earlier so that projects for the year in question can begin at the beginning of that

year,· A special mobility fund should be part of the programme,· The program should target “not yet candidate” countries as well,· In order to respond to cultural initiatives, enthusiasm is needed on both sides, and this is not the case when

one is faced with administrators.6. The cultural sector must start lobbying now to influence the objectives and criteria for the successor to the Culture

2000 programme.7. The culture and media sectors must gain a more prominent place in the EU Structural Funds. Accession countries

should be prepared for the type of planning, fund management and evaluation which is commonly employed inconnection with the EU Structural Funds in the present Member States.

8. Cultural projects funded from the structural or the trans-national funds need to be better identified and pro-moted.

9. Commissioner Viviane Reding should write to the heads of state of all Member States and the accession countriesurging them to write to those responsible at the regional level for allocating the Structural Funds to note the im-portance of the cultural sector.

10. There should be a 'risk fund' – which would be used to invest in people with new ideas.11. Practical programmes that can help develop sustainable local creative industries should be highlighted.12. Follow-up to this event was essential, and a further conference in 2003 should be seriously investigated.

Delegates were asked to take these recommendations, as appropriate, away with them and use them as the basis forlobbying their national and European representatives.

26

BRAVE NEW EUROPE?CONCLUDING SPEECH: ERHARD BUSEK, Special Co-ordinator of the Stability Pact for South Eastern EuropeAT THE FINAL SESSION

Thinking of Europe and enlargement of the EU and thinking of culture - perhaps not a concluding speech. This work is continuousand thus it is not possible to step aside and simply say we are not satisfied. Speaking in this building and in this city, I can say sometimeswe are not aware of the opportunities we are living through. There is Euroscepticism, sometimes mentioned as Euro-fatigue, that this is acomplicated process, as well as a tiring one, and how horrible are the problems and how difficult it is for Europe to enlarge and so on.

As a neighbouring Austrian – and one who is old enough to remember – I am well aware that it was a completely different situationnot so long ago. Thinking back to 1989, nobody would have thought then that we would be able to undertake this conference here underthe auspices of European enlargement and focusing on what is going on in culture, in the globalisation process and so on.

I think we all know these facts, but at the same time sometimes it is necessary to remember the window of opportunities in which weare living. It is quite a change from ‘89, when I personally brought a printing machine to Gabor Demszky, who is now the mayor ofBudapest, for him to print the samizdat – for him to have the possibility to print literature, which was forbidden. To articulate the wordsof those who were dissidents in this time.

I also remember my old friend Antall József, who organised a conference in Esztergom, the second conference of Magyar DemokrataFórum (the then governing political party), concerning the water power plant of Gabcikovo-Dunakiliti – and concerning its sustainabil-ity, which was is a “cultural challenge”, and in fact a political one also.

Lot of things have changed since.We have to learn by our pessimism – not that any is present in this conference – but pessimism in general – that it is possible to

change things in a postive way for a better common future. The title of the conference includes the word “better” – and it is better now inEurope. Not good, but already better. Development is possible – and possible in the right direction.

I think therefore we should be happy to be here and to have the possibility to discuss everything that is one the agenda for this con-ference. I want to focus on three questions or problems of development:

First, I would like to follow up an expression used by André Malraux, who said that we are living in a “musée d’imaginaire” – I thinkthat’s the right expression for Europe. Everything that is happening in Europe – be it history, culture or anything else – is happening sideby side. If we look across Europe, we can see how rich it is, but also how problematic some things are at the same time.

I confess that the division of East-West does still exist. Not a division by the iron curtain but by the Schengen –border arrangements,and by the difficulty of an open understanding of the situation of others. I can give you one example – the re-learning of geography. As Itold you I am Viennese – and still my fellow citizen would, if you asked the question: “which direction are you going if you are going fromVienna to Prague?”, would reply: “to the east”. But look at the map – itis in fact north west.

It’s a primitive example, but it is a connotation of the inner feeling which still exists. The expression of “Eastern enlargement” iswrong, because we would thus need to presume a centre for Europe. I have to confess that the expression “East” is to many a pejorativeexpression. “He is coming out of the East”. A Westerner may say this, but it would be wrong to do so.

We therefore have to face the fact that old dividing lines still exist. I always remember president Ronald Reagan once explaining howthe world is. He said: “On one side in the West are the good guys, and on the other side in the East are the bad guys”. And he added: “theevil empire”.

I understand that such explanations are very cosy for politics. Because you can say that you are on the good side, and those guys onthe bad side. Such views are still around.

Nowadays, we have the so-called clash of civilizations – perhaps because it is so easy to “explain” that there’s the Catholic world,there’s the Protestant world, there’s the Orthodox world, there’s the Islamic world and so on. The reality is – it is a real mixture. Forexample, thinking of our Greek friends within the EU, obviously their cultural influences are very much from the Orthodox church andfrom Orthodox thinking, and yet they are certainly part of Europe.

It is unnecessary to keep these dividing lines, because we have to be aware that today many of our citizens are a mixture of differentcultures with various roots and they all have to face the challenge of living together.

After September 11, for a short time – I’m glad only for a short time – it was normal to speak about the conflict between “crusaders”and Jihad. It’s easy to explain. In everyday life tensions are in fact higher between poor and rich than between religious symbols andgroups. But religion is sometimes used as an excuse for arguments. I realise we have a broader problem in general on this subject, whichI don’t want to touch upon here.

Other dividing lines are created by history. We mustn’t forget this because, for example, as far as south-east Europe is concerned, wehave a special responsibility. If you are looking through the history textbooks of the countries in the region – it’s a nightmare. There is

27

continuous talk about Greater Serbia, and Greater Albania, and greater this, and greater that. If you are coming from a country whichsuffered the consequences of being part of the “greater Germany”, you know it’s wrong. It is most definitely wrong.

The answer is: let’s work on culture. That gives us a better understanding of history. It makes no sense to push history aside, which issometimes done.

But how do we understand history? It is wrong to have the arrogant approach of : “oh leave them alone, they have lots of problems”.We have to assist to develop mutual understanding, to understand issues such as the rights of minorities and ethnic cleansing.

I, as an Austrian, can say we are responsible for many Serbs living in Krajina, Croatia. They were brought out during the second siegeof Vienna, when the Hapsburg army took the Serbs to Krajina. My fellow citizens are not aware of this fact. What’s more the orthodoxSerbian churches of Szentendre are also connected to this action.

This is not to say that we should be living in a museum. No, we live in a vivid present – which we have to live in a vivid way. This isthe “musée d’imaginaire” on one side. But how we have to handle the objects?

How to understand them is of a bigger importance.The other side in the “musée imaginaire” is the question of language. Don’t misunderstand me, we can handle our problems via in-

terpreters and translators quite well. The problem is rather how we understand the content of each other’s languages. There’s a verygood saying – albeit a cynical one – by the writer Krauss, from around the first world war: “Austrian and Germans are speaking the samelanguage. And that’s the difference.” This is very much my point. Not to blame each other, but to try and understand each other’s lan-guage.

The Old Testament mentions the Tower of Babel – and this is our world today. But the answer is in the New Testament: we are waitingfor Jesus Christ, and the spirit arrives and as a result everyone is able understand the other in his language.

Here you can see the importance of language: we have to have an empathy to understand each other and this means a great culturalfact in itself, which is definitely needed.

Another point aside from the “musée d’imaginaire”: a lot of discussion was going on after 1989 about the “finalité d’Europe”. Weshould be able to focus, not only on the enlargement process and on the pre-accession countries – but on the other parts of Europe too.

We have to look at the neighbouring problems, to be able to decide how to take the next steps, and to see what is necessary in orderto develop understanding. And this may hurt some countries. I’m very glad that Bulgaria and Slovenia are candidates, and I think it’s notright that Croatia is not a candidate. Some issues are connected with problems which we haven’t solved.

Some of the problems concerning the integration of Europe can occur as a result of migration, or from globalisation, causing misun-derstandings – and people ask “just who is that person wearing a chador?”. These are European problems, not only in a political sensebut also in a cultural sense.

This is actually a question of dealing with globalisation. Signor Sgarbi mentioned McDonald’s as a type of international “civilization”.But the question is not how we should oppose this, but how we are dealing with this, and living with this. McDonald’s can also representthe expression of what is the lowest common denominator, indicating, for example, that we may need to take a new look at cooking. Butwe shouldn’t blame the Americans for creating McDonald’s, but rather we ourselves should be taking steps in the right direction toaddress such challenges.

So, what is our contribution to Europe? At the national level, at the level of minority groups – this is the question of the impact ofEuropean enlargement on culture. How a diverse culture can contribute towards the goal of developing this common Europe?

If I would have the opportunity of starting again the integration process from scratch, perhaps it would be more efficient if it wasstarted by cultural integration. The unification of Europe and the integration of culture together. But I’m not blaming the politicians. Thisprocess can best be done by writers and actors. Governments can’t say: “now we are integrating culture.” If governments did that, Iwould fear for the outcome of the process. These are broader issues, linked to what we are doing now. There is the question of the heri-tage of civilisations. Concerning enlargement we have to admit that the contribution of the accession countries will be a big one. First, atthe moment, there is no Slavic language in the current EU. Second we have to admit, there’s no example of a smaller language, such asHungarian. How we are handling this? How we are handling the smaller countries?

I learned from an experience recently when I referred to the Baltic States – but they want to be referred as Estonians, Lithuanians,Latvians. It’s understandable. They have been fighting for their own independence for a long time and this has to be understood andaccepted.

After the first and second point of talking about the musee imaginaire and the finalite of Europe I want to touch on a third question:what is Europe?

We have very good economic development through EMU, which is a great step forward. But in the U.S. the EU is summoned up in onesentence: “The European Union is a global payer, but not a global player.”

That’s true. And you can’t blame the Americans for it. It’s our problem to develop the political instruments to be able to act. This isnot a cultural question, but it is a bit connected with what Europe is. Are we able in the development process to overcome old imagina-tions concerning the nation state? It is quite necessary to do so. What is European responsibility, what is the nation state responsibility?What is the responsibility of the region? And it’s very much connected with culture. Because when the European integration process wasstarted, culture, education and science were not part of responsibility of Europe. This exclusion was perhaps understandable for the five,

28

nine and now the 15 member countries. But a broader Europe – encompassing global development, and a common European develop-ment – it is necessary to have “competence” at this level.

The articles 126–127–128 in the Maastricht Treaty and the further articles 139 through 151 in the Amsterdam Treaty indicate compe-tence through subsidiarity. What we need for European culture, European science and European education, is common responsibility.This is not destroying national responsibility. Certainly not. There’s a lot to do.

To give you an example in culture: the EU has decided that TV stations of the EU member countries should be showing a maximum of50% of non-European movies. That’s very well. But the question is about the European movies, the other 50% – what are these like? Arewe really promoting them a broad sense, or are we limiting them by ourselves?

It has to be done not only by the government – they provide the framework – but it also has to be done by us – writers, artists, per-formers – and by the creation of a European public.

What we need is the possibility of European discussion as you are doing here. Because it is necessary to learn the acceptance of vari-ety and to learn the avoidance of uniformity. We have to do it for ourselves and by ourselves. Therefore you may understand that it is acontinuous exercise and a conclusion is never possible.

Thank you very much.

“Mobility is important, but not in the potentially narrow sense of exchange, theexchange of students or of artists, but as a way of promoting a curiosity of culture, ofdiversity.

We really have missed one partner from our discussions: the representatives fromthe European Union. Well, if the mountain won’t come to Mohammed, then we mustapproach them and convey our message; use the charisma from these meetingswhen you go home and spread the news and convince the decision makers.”

Péter Inkei at the Closing Plenary

29

BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS OF SPEAKERS AND PRESENTERSBAÁN, László — Born in 1961 in Budapest. Graduated from Karl Marx University of Economics (MKKE) in 1985, thenreceived a master’s in philosophy from Lóránd Eötvös University (ELTE) in 1986. In 1988 he earned a doctor’s degree(MKKE). Between 1986 and 1989 he held an academic scholarship (MTA, political science).

1998–2002: first deputy, then administrative state secretary at the Ministry of Cultural Heritage. The administrativestate secretary manages the official apparatus of the ministry, under the guidance of the minister, in accordance with thelegal acts and professional requirements.

BACCHELLA, Ugo — Founder and President of Fitzcarraldo Foundation, an international independent centre for research,training, planning, and documentation on cultural, arts and media management, economics and policies.

Got his Bachelor degree in Historical and Social Sciencies at the University of Turin in 1977. Works as Director ofTraining Programmes in cultural management in Turin since 1993 and he was the Partner of Fitzcarraldo Consulting srl,(formerly Chief executive and manager, 1986–1999). Mr. Bacchela is an Expert in cultural policies for the Council ofEurope and Board member of ERICArts (European Research Institute for cultural Affairs and Arts) as well.

BADIA, Francesc — Born in Mexico D.F. in 1960. He graduated in Socio-Linguistics and Semiotics at the University ofCalifornia at Berkeley and started his carrier at a Publishing house called Umbra Editora in Bacelona, Spain. Between1986–1991 worked for Hungarotex Espanola S.A., a foreign trade company as a co-director. Mr. Badia founded and co-directed the Badia Trading SCP and Frisch Trading Co. Ltd. Later in 1998 he was area manager and political advisor at theEconomical and Sociological Research Bureau in Barcelona. Finally he become the general manager Interarts Foundationfor International Cultural Cooperation. At the same time he has been leading different studies like “Reaarch Project onUrban Cultural Indicators” (EUROFACTUS), “Cultural Development and Connected Intelligence” for UNESCO etc.

BALIĆ, Naima — All the schooling (Lyceum, Music School, Faculty of Philosophy, M.A.) she finished in Zagreb. After heruniversity diploma she studied in Germany, Great Britain, France, and was Fulbright lecturer in USA. Ms. Balic has 17years active teaching experience at the School of Applied Art in Zagreb.

She is also an Executive Board member of Jeunesses Musicales Europe and president of Jeunesses Musicales Croatiaand she is a member of the National Council for Education on Human Rights the Cultural Committee of the Council ofEurope. From 2001 she is a vice-chair of Committee for Culture of the Council for Cultural Cooperation of Council ofEurope and she takes part in the work of Steering Committee of CIVITAS as well as member of European MovementCroatia, Société Europeène de culture (S.E.C.)

At the moment she has a position of vice minister in the Ministry of Culture responsible for internationalcooperation.

BOLTHO, Vera — Born in Rome, was educated in Germany and Italy (Humanities), USA (Social Sciences), Norway and France(Public Health).

In her capacity of Head of the Cultural Policy and Action Department of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France,Vera Boltho has overall responsibility for the audits of national cultural policies undertaken throughout Europe,particularly in central and eastern European countries. In previous positions Vera Boltho has been concerned with publicpolicies in the areas of education, higher education, health and social issues. Ms Boltho is regularly invited to bechairperson, general rapporteur, speaker and special guest lecturer at conferences, seminars, university courses andother events; and author of numerous articles.

BOULIN-GHICA, Irina — She has been trained at the National School of Administration (ENA, 1992–1994). She is holder ofCAPES (competitive exam for teaching applicants) and Master’s degree in English (Paris-Sorbonne, 1980). She has earnedB.A in English, Spanish and Art History (University of Paris-Sorbonne, 1979).

In the years 1981–1990 she worked as a journalist, first at BBC World Service in London, then at Reuter’s NewsAgency.

30

Since January 2001 she has been nominated Head of European and International Bureau, Directorate for MediaDevelopment (Prime Minister’s Office). Previously she worked at the City of Paris first at the Department for CulturalAffairs (in charge of the Budget), then the Department for International relations.

BROWN, Geoffrey — Born in 1952, completed General Management Course for Senior Arts Executives, Sydney (1980), DramaFellowship, University of Sydney (1977), BA (Drama & Theatre Studies), University of New South Wales (1974).

He founded EUCLID on 1 April 1993 and has been its Director since. EUCLID hosts a web-site (www.euclid.co.uk) withextensive international cultural information, and produces a number of e-mail and printed newsletters and bulletins,covering international cultural research, European funding opportunities, and other key topics. EUCLID also organised amajor European conference on “Creativity, Culture and Employment” (London, May 1998) as part of the UK Presidencyof the European Union.

BUSEK, Erhard — Born in 1941,Vienna, Austria. He is the Chairman of the Institute for the Danube Region and CentralEurope (IDM) and Special Co-ordinator of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe.

Dr. Busek was General Secretary at the Austrian Federal of Trade and Commerce (1972–1976) later he became theChairman of Austrian People’s Party. From 1978–1987 he was Deputy Major and City Councillor at the City of Vienna. Hiscarrier was continued at the Ministry for Science and Research and at the Ministry for Education. At the same time Mr.Busek was the Vice Chancellor of Republic of Austria and, from 1991, the Chairman of Austrian People’s Party. In 2000and 2001 Mr. Busek was Special Representative of the Austrian Government for the Enlargement of the EU. He has alsobeen takeing part in the activity of Southeast European Cooperative Initiative (SECI).

Dr. Busek studied at the University of Vienna at the Faculty of Law.

CARAMITRU, Ion — Born in Bucharest in 1942; is married, has three children. He graduated in “Ion Luca Caragiale” Theatreand Film Institute, Bucharest in 1964.

As a theatre actor his debut was in 1964 at the National Theatre, in Bucharest. Was actor and director at “Lucia SturdzaBulandra” Theatre in Bucharest (1965–1993). In 1975, 1979, 1981, 1985 received Prizes for theatre interpretation inRomania.

Since 1976 has been Professor of Drama at the Theatre and Film Academy in Bucharest; Founder and President of theUNITER Romania (Union of Theatre Professionals) since 1990.

In his political career, Ion Caramitru was emblematic figure of the Romanian Revolution on 22 December, 1989;Between December 1996–November 2000 Minister of Culture in the Governments.

ČERNOCH, Pavel — He is currently teaching European integration at the Jean Monnet Centre, Faculty of Social Sciences ofCharles University in Prague, Czech Republic. He studied History and Political Science at Erlangen/Nuremberg Universityand was president of the European students’ association AEGEE-Europe in 1993.

He spent the academic year 2000/2001 as a visiting professor at Grinnell College in Iowa/USA.In 2001/2002 he is a policy fellow of the Open Society Institute, working on a research paper about the relations of

the European Union with South-East Europe and the Black Sea Region. His wide range of interests revolve aroundlanguages, cultures and history, he is particularly focused on the future of the European Union and the role of Europe inthe world in general.

Pavel grew up both in Germany and the Czech Republic, has traveled extensively.

CLOSS, Wolfgang — Born in 1949 in Perl/Sehndorf, Germany. Graduated in Law from the University of Saarland. Holder ofVWA Diploma – Graduate of the Academy for Business and Administration (VWA), Rhineland-Palatinate.

Between 1972–1991 he held a variety of high-level public service positions in the Ministry of Home Affairs andMinistry of the Environment of the Government of the Saarland.

Until August 2000 (from 1994) he worked as General Manager of the Institute of European Media Law (EMR)Saarbrücken/Brussels/Berne as well as member of various national and international committees of experts in the Mediafield. Since September 2000 he has been Executive Director of the European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg.

31

ČOPIČ, Vesna — graduated at the Faculty of Law at the University of Ljubljana. In the 90’s she prepared the legislation in thesphere of culture for the Ministry of Culture. In 1995 she participated in an international group of experts of the Councilof Europe evaluating the culture policy of Italy and in 1999 she was engaged as the legal expert in the Thematic study on“Desetatisation and Privatisation of National Cultural Institutions in Transition”.

She participates as an expert in the MOSAIC program of Council of Europe and in the program of ECF Towards NewCultural Policies. She publishes in the scientific journal at home and abroad. She is also an assistant lecturing culturalpolicy and cultural management in the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University in Ljubljana.

CSANÁDI, Andrea — Program Coordinator of the Arts and Culture Network Program at the Open Society Institute Budapest.Ms. Csanádi earned her Bachelor’s Degree in General Economics and Management in 1995 and got a Master Diploma

of Political Science and Economics in 1997. She paralelly completed her studies at the Budapest University of Economicand Social Sciences. Between 1998–1999 she was a student of Central European University at the Department of Arts inInternational Relations and European Studies and got her degree in 1999.

She started her carrier at the M&H Communications Public Relations Consulting Agency, Budapest, Hungary (amember of The European Partnership for Public Communication) as Account Executive.

DALLAS, Costis — Is a Lecturer in Cultural Heritage Management and Advanced Technologies at the Department ofCommunication, Media and Culture of Panteion University. He is also Chairman and Principal Research Officer of CriticalPublics, a group of companies active in the field of strategic communications, creative design and technology.

He has been co-founder and Chair of the Multimedia Working Group of the International Council of Museums(CIDOC/ICOM), Head of Documentation and Systems of the Benaki Museum, General Director of the Foundation of theHellenic World, Special Secretary of Libraries, Archives and Educational Media in the Greek Ministry of Education, andSpecial Advisor of the Greek Foreign Minister on cultural affairs. Costis holds MPhil and DPhil degrees from theUniversity of Oxford.

DE VLIEG, Mary Ann — Born in Detroit, Michigan; American, married (to a British citizen). Education: Teacher Training atWestern Michigan University; Multicultural/Early Childhood Education at San Francisco City College; Linguistics atUniversity of California, Berkeley; Accounting, Management and Finance at City of London Polytechnic; EuropeanCultural Policy and Administration at University of Warwick; M.A. in European Cultural Policy and Administration.

Since 1994 to date Network Co-ordinator (Secrétaire Générale) of IETM (Informal European Theatre Meeting). In1993–1994 Founder/Director of Dance Services, Arnolfini, Bristol (England). Former or actual member of Conseild’administration et Bureau (Trésorier) Fonds Roberto Cimetta, Co-president and Executive Committee member(Trésorier) of EFAH/FEAP (European Forum for the Arts and Heritage), Conseil d’administration of DACOR, Lille(regional cultural development organisation.

DODD, Diane — Co-ordinatates and manages the European think-tank, CIRCLE (Cultural Information and Research CentresLiaison in Europe) which she combines with her work as a freelance researcher, editor and consultant in the field ofEuropean cultural policy. In addition, she is also the co-ordinator of CPRO (Culture Policy Research Online), the co-ordinator of a network of cultural policy documentation centres called RECAP.

Previously she worked as a consultant for the European League of Institutes of the Arts (ELIA) and the London Schoolof Economics.

From 1995–2000 she was employed by INTERARTS Observatory in Barcelona. Before starting her career as aresearcher of cultural policy Diane managed a Community Theatre Company called EnTelechy and performed as well asdirected theatre and dance productions.

DRAGOJEVIĆ, Sanjin — Studied philosophy, comparative literature, and computer science at the Faculty of Philosophy, theUniversity of Zagreb, and he graduated in 1986.In period 1987–1993, he has been working at the Institute forDevelopment and International Relations, Zagreb. He has been participating in the Culturelink network.He finished post-graduate study in Information Sciences at the Zagreb University. In 1992 he became the winner of the Pergamon PressPrize in European studies.

32

Between 1993–1998 he was working on a wide range of projects for the KulturKontakt, Austria and for the CentralEuropean University, Prague and for Croatian Ministry of Science and Technology and for Unesco. In the period 1995–1998 he was a Head of Department for Bilateral Cultural Co-operation at the Croatian Ministry of Culture.

At the moment he is lecturer at the Faculty of Political Science in Zagreb, University of Zagreb, teaching subjectsSociology of Mass Communication and Sociology of Culture.

GLASER,Thomas Martin — Born in 1956, has become a counsellor to the European Commission`s Delegation to Hungary.He started working for the EC Commission in 1975, in the Training Division. From 1993, he was a unit head at the

Enlargement Information Office. Between 1990 and 1993, he took part in setting up and running the Information UnitDG XVI. His previous operational post within the Commission, which he took up in 1984, involved editing and writing ontrade and development topics for the ACP-EEC Courier. Before that, he worked at the Management and OrganizationDivision. His last private-sector job was in the public affairs department of Esso Petroleum, where he worked from 1974to 1975. He graduated from the University of Cambridge with a BA in history in 1965. He then obtained an MA inInternational Relations and Political Sciences from the University of Pennsylvania in 1966.

GUGLIELMO, Rachel — Guglielmo, Rachel is the director of the European Union Accession Monitoring Program at the OpenSociety Institute in Budapest.

Ms. Guglielmo joined OSI after four years with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe – first inBosnia as an elections monitor, and later as a project manager for Central/Eastern Europe and the Balkan with the HighCommissioner on National Minorities.

In graduate school at the Fletcher School for Law & Diplomacy in Boston, Ms. Guglielmo focused on internationalhuman rights law and security studies, with a particular research interest in Central/Eastern Europe. Prior to graduateschool, she lived and worked for three years in Hungary as a US Peace Corps volunteer, including two years as a high-school English teacher in Nagykanizsa and a year helping establish the Gandhi Gimnázium in Pécs.

INKEI, Péter — Born in 1945 in Budapest, is the Director of the Budapest Observatory: Regional Observatory on FinancingCulture in East-Central Europe; he is a consultant in cultural policy and serves on the Board of Cultural Information andResearch Centres Liaison in Europe (CIRCLE).

Previously, he had held many positions in the civil service, including deputy minister for culture (1996–1998),general director for publishing (Ministry of Culture), and his first job at the National Commission for UNESCO. He hasalso worked in publishing – actually with Central European University Press.

His original training was English and Spanish at Budapest Eötvös University.

JELINČIĆ, Daniela Angelina — She received M.A. in 2000 in the field of cultural anthropology at the Faculty of Philosophy,University of Zagreb. In 1999 completed a course in the summer school ‘Lorenzo il Magnifico’. In 1995 she earned B.A. intwo major subject studies: cultural anthropology/Italian language and literature at the Faculty of Philosophy, Universityof Zagreb.

She worked and currently works on various projects in the following subject: Position of Croatia in InternationalCommunication and Cultural Environment, International Relations of Croatia, Publishing Legislation Online Project-PLOP which was for the Open Society Institute Hungary.

In the year 1997 a member of the editorial board of the Culturelink review.

KAJANTIE, Marianna — Marianna Kajantie is deputy cultural director of the cultural office of city of Helsinki. Herresponsibilities are for cultural policies, EU projects and subsidies to the Arts. She is director of Alexander theatre,municipally run receiving venue, and managing director of Lasipalatsi Media Centre, independent structure Urban PilotProject of DG XVI 1997–99.

Other EU involvments are memberships in networks and partner in some culture 2000 programmes. She hasmasters’s degree from the University of Helsinki.

KAZIMIERZ, Krzysztofek — His fields of research include: the cultural aspects of European integration; cultural adaptation to

33

change in Eastern and Central Europe; the impact of information technology on the arts; the implications of smallmarkets for cultural industries and culture production, distribution, and consumption; and community cultures and civilsociety.

Since 1994 (until 2000) he worked at the Institute of Culture as Director for Research. He has been Professor ofSociology at the University of Bialystok since 1997, and a member of the Polish Academy of Science Committee forForecasting “Poland 2000Plus” since 1995. Since 2000 he has been profesor of sociology in the Warsaw School ofAdvanced Sociology in Warsaw. He is also a member of the International Studies Association, as well as a member andformer board member of CIRCLE.

He has published widely and received numerous awards and honours.

KLAIĆ, Dragan — He is Professor of Theater Studies at the University of Amsterdam. From 1992 until summer 2001 he wasDirector of Theater Instituut Nederland. Educated in dramaturgy in Belgrade and with a doctorate in theater history anddramatic criticism from Yale University.

Before leaving Yugoslavia in 1991 he was Professor at the University of Arts in Belgrade and the founding Co-Editorof Euromaske, the European Theater Quarterly. Among his books are several works published in the former Yugoslavia.His articles appeared in many periodicals in several languages.

Klaić is a Contributing Editor of the Theater magazine (USA), President of the European Forum of Arts & Heritage(EFAH, Brussels), board member of Praemium Erasmianum (Amsterdam) and Transeuropeennes (Paris) and member ofthe advisory boards of the Nexus Institute (Tilburg), Kunsten 92, the Fund for the Central & East European Book Project(Amsterdam) and of the Marcel Hicter European Diploma training program (Brussels).

KŐRÖSI, Orsolya — Born in Veszprém, Hungary. 1980–88: studied at Eötvös University ELTE in Budapest, majoring inHungarian language and literature and history and later also in Portuguese. 1997–2000: school for certified publicaccountants. Participated in post-graduate scholarships and study trips in Lisbon, Dubrovnik, Rome and Paris.

1987–88: lecturer and librarian at the Department of Portuguese language and literature. 1989–97: Ministry ofCulture and Education – International Center of Hungarian Studies: editor, deputy director, later director. 1997–2000:executive director of the National Association of Hungarian Journalists. Since February, 2000: deputy state secretary ofthe Ministry of Cultural Heritage, responsible for arts and international affairs.

LACOMBE, Robert — Deputy Director of the French Institute and cultural attaché in Budapest since 1998. Between 1994–1998fulfilled similar positions in Hanoi, Vietnam.

Studied philosophy and political sciences, graduated at the ‘Ecole Normale Supérieure de Fontenay Saint-Cloud’ in1994.

MISZLIVETZ, Ferenc — Director of the Szombathely-based Institute of Social and European Studies at Dániel Berzsenyi Collegeand Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Political Science of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, professorMiszlivetz has received first degree at Karl Marx University of Economics (1978) and majored in history at Eötvös LorándUniversity in Budapest (1982).

Since 1983 he has been Ph.D. in Twentieth Century European History (Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest) andCandidate of Science in Sociology (Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest) since 1994.

Main research topics iclude Social Movements, Emerging Civil Societies and Participation, New Political Parties andHuman rights in Eastern Europe during the Transition Period, European Integration, European Security and The EasternEnlargement of the European Union.

NASTOPKAITE.-MARTIKONIENE

., Agne. — She graduated from Vilnius University (1987–88), M. Lomonosov Moscow University

(1988–1991). Furthermore, earned Degree in Classical Philology; ISTI a.s.b.l. (Haute ecole de Bruxelles), Le Centred’Etude des Relations Européenes 1998–1999, diploma with distinction.

Since 1999 she has been director of the European cultural programs center/ Lithuanian Cultural Contact Point.Between 1996–1999 she was editor of the Lithuanian version of “European Dialogue, simultaneously, in 1997–1999, shewas Brussels-based correspondent for Lithuanian daily “Respublika” and Radio Free Europe Lithuanian

34

Direction.Formerly, in 1991–1992, she taught Latin and Greek at Vilnius University. Recently she has publishedNastopkaite. A., Petrauskis K. Ar yra alternatyva ES? (Is there an alternative to EU?), Vilnius, 2000

MARSCHALL, Miklós — Mr. Marschall was born in 1953. He is the executive director of Transparency International, a globalNGO fighting against corruption. His responsibility includes East- and Central-Europe and the former Soviet Union.Between 1994 and 1998, he was the executive director of CIVICUS: a global network of NGOs and foundations to promotecivil society. In 1991– 1994, he served as deputy mayor of Budapest, Hungary.

Mr. Marschall serves on the boards of several international and Hungarian NGOs including International Intelligenceon Culture. He is the chair of the Hungarian Nonprofit Information and Training Center (NIOK).

He also serves as the chair of the Board of the Budapest Festival Orchestra. He was the founding chair of the BudapestObservatory. Mr. Marschall graduated from the Karl Marx University of Economics in Budapest in 1977 and received hisdoctorate from the same university in 1984. In 1988/89, he was a Fulbright visiting fellow at Yale, studying the Americannon-profit sector.

MERCER, Colin — He is the UK’s first Professor of Cultural Policy and Director of The Cultural Policy and Planning ResearchUnit (CPPRU) at The Nottingham Trent University. Prior to his return to the UK in 1998 he spent 14 years in Australiawhere he developed extensive expertise in the field of integrated and strategic cultural development and planning atlocal, State (provincial) and national levels.

MITCHELL, Ritva — Head of Research at the Arts Council of Finland; President of CIRCLE-network; President of EricArts;Former programme advisor at the Council of Europe (1992–1997); Member of the Orientation Board of the EuropeanDiploma of Cultural Management; Lecturer at the Sibelius Academy of Music, Helsinki; Lecturer at the University ofJyväskylä. Has written a number of books and articles on cultural policies and cultural development in Europe.

MUCICA, Delia Ruxandra — Graduated the Law Faculty of the University of Bucharest in 1975 and she has just completed a PhDin Romanian economic history. For more than 13 years she was a scientific researcher with the Economics Institute of theRomanian Academy. She also worked at the Kriterion Publishing House, and the Standing Committee for Culture, Artsand Mass Media of the Chamber of Deputies. Fulfilled various jobs at of the Ministry of Culture: General Secretary, andsince 2001 Director of the Division for Harmonization, Media, Audiovisual and Evaluation.

She published two books on Romanian copyright legislation and a series of articles on cultural legislation. Since 1996she is associated professor at the High School for Journalism and the University of Theatre and Film, Bucharest, teachingcourses on audiovisual legislation, cultural legislation and copyright.

OBULJEN, Nina — She is a member of the Culturelink team, works as a research assistant at the Institute for InternationalRelations in Zagreb, Croatia. She graduated both from the Academy of Music and the Faculty of Arts at the University ofZagreb. She finished a one-year programme at the Diplomatic Academy in Zagreb. Her professional experiences includethe positions of the Chief of Cabinet to the Minister of Culture of the Republic of Croatia and the Coordinator forUNESCO at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

She worked as a consultant for the Unit for the Promotion of the Status of Women and Gender Equality (UNESCO,Paris), the Dubrovnik Summer Festival, the International Children’s Institute (Montreal) and several other NGOs andcultural institutions. She is currently enrolled in a Comparative Politics post-graduate programme at the Faculty ofPolitical Sciences at the University of Zagreb.

PASCUAL I RUIZ, Jordi — Born in Catalonia in 1968 , is an urban geographer. After the degree in Geography (1992). Hecompleted his MA Thesis in 1996 on “Marriage market and migration in Spain”. He spent seven years involved in researchprojects at the university “Autónoma de Barcelona” (1993–1997) and the Interarts Foundation for international culturalco-operation (1996–2000). His field of expertise is the place of culture in urban development and the creation of suitableindicators to analyse policies and programmes. In 1999 he joined the Institute of Culture of Barcelona as a delegate foranalysis and prospective.

35

RAINESALO, Pirkko — Counsellor for Cultural Affairs at the Finnish Ministry of Education, Department for Cultural, Sport andYouth Policy since 1989, before that e.g. Secretary General of the Arts Council of Finland 1981–1989.

Since 1996 national responsibility for the Council of Europe Culture Committee, where elected vice chair 1998–2000and acting chair since September 2000. Earlier work in different working and expert groups of the culture committeeinclude e.g. membership in the Culture and Regions group 1984–1990, and the expert group evaluating Sloveniancultural policy in 1996. Expert on competences and practices in European Local and Regional Cultural Policy to theWorking Group on Culture , Education and Media of the Council of Europe Congress of Local and Regional Authorities inEurope, Studies and texts, No 69/CLRAE.

RAZLOGOV, Kirill — He was born in 1946, M.A. in art history (Moscow University), professor, Ph.D. in cultural studies,Director of the Russian Institute for Cultural Research, author of 14 books and more than 300 articles on art history, filmand the media, cultural policy and development.

Organiser of film festivals and TV programmes on film and art. Previous positions: researcher at the Russian FilmArchive (Gosfilmofond), special assistant to the president of the State Film Committee, professor of film history, mediaand cultural studies at the State Film Institute (VGIK), High courses for film directors and script writers and the Institutefor European culture in Moscow.

SGARBI, Vittorio — Born in 1952, Ferrara, Italy. He got his degree in philosphy at the University of Bologna. He is the Directorof the Board of Supervision of Venice Artificial and Historical Values. He is a well-known essayist and televisionannouncer as well. Mr. Sgarbi is author of numerous art historian works such as “Carpaccio”, ‰Palladio and Manierism”,“Universal Art History” etc.

He was annonuncer of the so-called “Daily Sgarbi” television programme from 1992–1999; awarded him by theFlaiano International Television Prize.

He also works for many daily, weekly news and magazines e.g: “Il Giornale”, “L’ Espresso”, “Panorama”, “Arte eDocumento”.

He has been working actively in the Italian Parliment as Member of the Parliament and as Cultural Under-Secretary ofthe State.

ŞUTEU, Corina — Earned MA in Romanian and English language at the University of Bucharest. She has been a member ofthe following professional bodies: president of the Forum of European Cultural Networks, member of IETM, member ofENCATC (European Network of Training Centres for Cultural administration). Currently, she presides ECUMESTassociation.

She has a vast record (from 1995) of training experience i.e. setting up, together with the European CulturalFoundation, Amsterdam, the Policies for Culture Project and coordinating it (France, Holland, Romania), and holding atrainer and coordinator position for the core training inside the Phare scheme.

She has published several times diverse articles in Romanian magazines: “TEATRUL”, “TEATRUL AZI”, “COTIDIANULRomania literara”, “22”, “Steaua”, “Orizont”; articles in “Economia de la Cultura”, “Observatoire des politiquesculturelle”, “Culture Europe”.

SZABÓ, György — Born in 1959, in Budapest and graduated at the Marx Károly University of Economic, and at the EötvösLoránd University, at the Faculty of Arts Management.

Started his carrier at the so-called “Youth Organisational Office” and at the same time he was the manager of theyouth club of his first University called “KÖZGÁZ Klub”. From 1985 he become the art manager of PECSA (a main youthand cultural center of Budapest) As a result of his work he achieved a reputation internationally in the field of HungarianContemporary Dance.

In the meanwhile he founded the “Workshop Foundation” (1996). Then he has been later he became director of theClub of Young Artistand he has been directing “TRAFÓ” (Contemporary Art Center.

Won the Hevesi Sándor Prize in 1998 and the Győrffy Miklós Prize in 2001.

SZABÓ, Ildikó — Cultural tourism Councilor, head of department, Ministry of Cultural Heritage. Hungary. Previously she was

36

set designer and assistant editor at the Hungarian Film Studio from 1979 to 1987 and later project manager in the field ofarchitect. In 1990 she was department head at the Prime Minister’s Office and became the director of special events andprogramming of EXPO ‘96 Ltd. In 1994. Among others she worked for Hungarian Tourism Services Rt.(artistic director)and for Budapest Spring Festival (advisor) and joined the Ministry of Culture and Public Education in 1997 as culturalcouncilor.

Ms. Szabó earned her B.A degree in architecture at Ybl Miklós Technical Collage (Budapest) and got an art managerdiploma at University of Applied Arts (Budapest).

SZOMBATI, Béla — Born in Tel-Aviv in 1955, the son of a career diplomat. He received higher education at London Universityand Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, graduated in 1980. Then he entered the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA),where he worked at the Department of International Security, MFA. He has been Attaché, later Secretary of theHungarian Embassy in Hanoi. Back in Hungary, in 1986–1988, he worked as US Desk Officer in Department One, MFA(North America and part of Western Europe).

He has been nominated Secretary of the Hungarian Embassy in Washington, D.C. dealing with cultural affairsbetween 1988–1991 and Foreign Policy Advisor to the President of the Republic and Head of the Foreign RelationsDepartment of the President’s Office, Budapest between 1991–1994.

In 1994–1999 represented Hungary as Ambassador of the Republic of Hungary in Paris.From 1999 (Aug) he has beenDeputy Head of the State Secretariat for Integration.

VARBANOVA, Lidia — Currently, she is Program Director of Arts and Culture Network at Open Society Institute, Budapest(2000); Head of Department of Social and Cultural Management and Economics at University of National and WorldEconomy, Sofia (1995–); and Member of the Board of CIRCLE.

She has been awarded numerous grants and fellowships in 1991–2001, among others Fulbright fellowship ineconomics.

Areas of teaching, consultancy and research include cultural policy in Central and Eastern Europe cultural marketing,fundraising and sponsorship, cultural economics and non-profit management.

She is holder of Ph.D. degree in Economics; MA in Industrial Management; and Minor in Journalism.She has published 3 books on sponsorship, HR and arts management and lot of articles in Bulgarian and

international scientific journals and periodicals.

VERON, Claude — Born in 1945, married, educated in educational science, sociology and cultural management.In his professional career he has been a teacher, co-ordinator of the Popular Education Movement, co-ordinator of

Marseille Objective Danse, Director of Pépiničres européennes pour Jeunes Artistes and actually Director of Relais-Culture-Europe.

Mr Veron has been member of the Informal European Theatre Meeting since 1988, was co-founder of the EuropeanForum for the Arts and Heritage (EFAH), where he served as board member between1993–2001.

WIESAND, Andreas Johannes — Born in 1945, completed studies in politics, sociology and education with a Ph.D. He workedfirst in broadcasting, at Rowohlt publishing house and at DER SPIEGEL. Since 1972, he directs the Zentrum fürKulturforschung in Bonn; since 1993 he is Secretary General of the European Research Institute for ComparativeCultural Policy and the Arts (ERICarts) and professor for arts administration at the State College for Music andTheatre, Hamburg. Prof. Wiesand specializes in empirical studies on European cultural issues and in surveying the artsand media professions.

Currently, he heads a five-year state best-practice programme on arts education and new technologies (cf.www.kubim.de). He is author or responsible editor of over 40 publications. He has served as chairman of the board of acopyright licensing society, as Secretary General of the German Arts Council (1982–93) and in similar voluntarypositions.

ZONGOR, Attila — Director of KultúrPont Iroda, the Hungarian Cultural Contact Point which was established in 2000. Alsocurrently employed as a Financial Adviser to the Hungarian Ministry of Culture. Graduate of the University of EconomicSciences in Budapest with a degree in International Relations and EU Affairs. Also a graduate of the Liszt Ferenc Academyof Music and a qualified Choir Master.

37

LIST OF PARTICIPANTSNAME COUNTRY INSTITUTION E-MAIL ADDRESSAradi, Mária Hungary Euro-Info Point aradim@freemail.huBaán, László Hungary Ministry of Cultural HeritageBacchela, Ugo Italy Fitzcarraldo Foundation ugobac@fitzcarraldo.itBadia i Dalmases, Francesc Spain Interarts Foundation fbadia@interarts.netBajdor, Tünde Hungary Brandenburg Technical University tbajdor@planetclub.orgBalázs, Dóra Hungary Budapest University of Economic

Sciencesbdorka@yahoo.com

Balić, Naima Croatia Ministry of Culture naima.balic@min-kulture.hrBardiaux, Matthieu Hungary French Institute m.bardiaux@inst-france.huBarrett, Nancy United Kingdom Trafford MBC nancy.barrett@trafford.gov.ukBenke, Dorottya Hungary Berzsenyi Dániel FőiskolaBernadska, Anna Ukraine International Renaissance (Soros)

Foundation in Ukrainebernadska@irf.kiev.ua

Bertalan, Tamás Hungary M-Érték 67Besze, Barbara Hungary Eötvös Loránd University, Faculty

of Elementary Teachers’ andNurseries’ Training

Bibic, Bratko Slovenia Peace Institute bratko.bibic@guest.arnes.siBíró Kovács, Ágnes Hungary Ministry of Cultural Heritage agnes.biro@nkom.gov.huBlack, Michael United Kingdom EuropaWriting mwilblack@cs.comBlakemore, David United Kingdom Akademi South Asian Dance

Companydblakem220@aol.com

Blanchet, Adrien France Sciences PoBlaškovičova, Luba Slovakia Gremium of the Third Sector + Old

Downtown Theatre Kosicelubapeto@shadow-net.sk

Bodo, Carla Italy Associazione dell’Economia dellaCultura

segreteria@economiadellacultura.it

Boltho, Vera France Head of Cultural Policy and ActionDepartment, Council of Europe

vera.boltho@coe.int

Boni, Milena Isabella Italy Universitá di Torino boni@econ.unito.itBoulin-Ghica, Irina France Prime Minister’s Office, Paris,

Franceirina.boulin-ghica@ddmedias.pm.gouv.fr

Bősze, Brigitta Hungary SZTE GTKBrandt, Godfrey United Kingdom Arts Management, Faculty of

Continuing Education, BirkbeckUniversity of London

g.brandt@bbk.ac.uk,godfrey.brandt@virgin.net

Brown, Geoffrey United Kingdom Euclid info@euclid.co.ukBudai, Katalin Hungary Ministry of Cultural Heritage katalin.budai@nkom.gov.huBusek, Erhard Austria Austrian Commissioner for EU

Enlargementseci@osce.org

Caramitru, Ion Romania Uniter, Romanian TheaterAssociation

uniter@fx.ro

Černoch, Pavel Czech Republic Charles University, Prague pavel.cernoch@usa.netChabaud, Frédérique Belgium European Forum for the Arts and

Heritageefah@skynet.be

Cliche, Danielle Germany ERICArts cliche@ericarts.orgCloss, Wolfgang France Audiovisual Observatory,

StrasbourgWolfgang.Closs@obs.coe.int

Čopič, Vesna Slovenia Ministry of Culture vesna.copic@gov.siCullinan, Eve-Anne Ireland Digital Media Development ecullinan@thedigitalhub.com

38

NAME COUNTRY INSTITUTION E-MAIL ADDRESSCurman, Peter Sweden Swedish Joint Committee for

Literary and Artistic Professionals(KLYS)

council@klys.se

Cvetković, Marijana Yugoslavia Balkankult marijana@balkankult.orgCzibók, Zsuzsanna Hungary BKÁECsanádi, Andrea Hungary Open Society Institute, Arts and

Culture Network Programmeacsanadi@osi.hu

Csiki, Ottilia Hungary Berzsenyi Dániel FőiskolaCsontos, Anita Hungary College of Foreign TradeCsurdi, Gábor Hungary HIFA - Hungarian Irish Friends’

Associationgcsurdi@hotmail.com

Dallas, Costis Greece Panteion Uiversity, Athens cdallas@panteion.grDávid, Ágota Hungary BKÁE deakagota@yahoo.comde Rijk, Klaus Hungary Royal Netherlands Embassy,

Budapestklaus-de.rijk@minbuza.nl

de Vlieg, Mary Ann Belgium European Forum for the Arts andHeritage

ietm@ietm.org

Deák, Ildikó Hungary Ministry of Cultural HeritageDeés, Szilvia Hungary College for Modern Business

Studiesdees.szilvia@mutf.hu

Deme, Péter Hungary Hungarian National Museum demep@hnm.huDescotes, Bernard France EMMEN apejs@club-internet.frDeutsch, Iulia Romania Delegation of the European

Commission in Romaniaiulia.deutsch@delrom.cec.eu.int

Dickinson, Neil United Kingdom Freelance neilax@hotmail.comDienes, Gedeon Hungary Hungarian Society for ChoreologyDobó, Orsolya Hungary Berzsenyi Dániel FőiskolaDodd, Diane Spain CIRCLE diane.dodd@eresmas.netDragojević, Sanjin Croatia Zagreb University vera@mairmo.irmo.hrEgervári, Anna Hungary Berzsenyi Dániel FőiskolaEgri, Katalin Hungary Berzsenyi Dániel FőiskolaEller, Eike Estonia Ministry of Culture eike.eller@kul.eeEriksson, Claes Sweden Ministry of Culture claes.eriksson@culture.ministry.seErnyey, Katalin Hungary Bureau for the Protection of

Cultural Heritageernyey@nsi.koi.hu

Fábián, Dalma Hungary Berzsenyi Dániel FőiskolaFábián, Eszter Hungary Ministry of Economic AffairsFarkas, Csilla Hungary University of SzegedFisher, Rod United Kingdom International Intelligence on

Culturerodfisher@intelculture.org

Flaskár, Adrienn Hungary College of NyíregyházaFlood, Mik United Kingdom Euclid mik@euclid.co.ukFodor, Éva Hungary University of Foreign TradeFox, Roger United Kingdom Voluntary Arts Network roger@voluntaryarts.orgFöldesi, Zsófia Hungary Budapest Observatory z@budobs.orgGallardo, Jean-Yves Norway Norwegian Council for Cultural

Affairsjean-yves.gallardo@kulturrad.dep.no

Gáspár, Miklós Hungary studentGieles, Yvette The Netherlands SICA - Service Centre for

International Cultural Activitiesccpnl@sicasica.nl

Glaser, Thomas Hungary European Delegation to HungaryGöndör, Krisztina Hungary Euro-Info Point gondorkrisztina@hotmail.comGőz, László Hungary BMC Hungary

39

NAME COUNTRY INSTITUTION E-MAIL ADDRESSGrahl, Robert Germany Kulturstiftung des Freistaates

Sachsenrobert.grahl@kss.smwk.sachsen.de

Greiner, Sonja Germany Europa Cantat info@europacantat.orgGrodska, Ilona Latvia Ministry of CultureGrúber, Petra Hungary Berzsenyi Dániel FőiskolaGuglielmo, Rachel Hungary Open Society Institute, Budapest RGuglielmo@osi.huGurmai, Beáta HungaryHámori, Hanna Hungary ELTE-TÓFK sherry@freemail.huHelston, Michael United Kingdom Department for Culture, Media and

Sportmichael.helston@culture.gsi.gov.uk

Hlács, András HungaryHofecker, Franz-Otto Austria Institute for Cultural Management hofecker@mdw.ac.atHorváth, Zsófia Hungary horvath.zsofia@freemail.huHuszár, Gyöngyvér Hungary CCP Hungary info@kulturpont.huIgnáth, Éva Hungary Teleki InstituteIhász, Orsolya Hungary Berzsenyi Dániel FőiskolaIlczuk, Dorota Poland Institute of Public Affairs,

Jagiellonian University in Cracowdilczuk@post.pl

Inkei, Péter Hungary Budapest Observatory bo@budobs.orgJankovich-Bésán, Dénes Hungary Office for the Protection of Cultural

HeritageJelinčić, Daniela Croatia Culturelink/IMO daniela@irmo.hrJordan, Julia Nedda Hungary College for Modern Business

Studiesjjnedda@ax.hu

Kajantie, Marianna Finland Helsinki City Council marianna.kajantie@hel.fiKandikó, József Hungary College for Modern Business

Studieskandiko.jozsef@mutf.hu

Kaser, Daniela Austria ÖKS – Österreichischer Kultur-Service

daniela.kaser@oks.at

Kazimierz, Krzysztofek Poland Department of SocialCommunication, University ofBialystok

kkristof@ warman.com.pl,k.krzysztofek@chello.pl

Kelly, Paul United Kingdom paul.kelly20@virgin.netKincses, Ágnes Hungary Directorate of Hungarian Cultural

InstitutesKing, Annie Ireland K2ARTS k2arts@eircom.netKishegyi, Viktória Hungary Hungarian Institute for CultureKiss, Attila Hungary Hajdúböszörmény ÖnkormányzataKivelä, Risto Finland Ministry of Education and Culture risto.kivela@minedu.fiKlaić, Dragan Belgium European Forum for the Arts and

Heritagebalakla@worldonline.nl

Kóczián-Szentpéteri, Erzsébet Hungary Ministry of Cultural Heritage erzsebet.koczianszentpeteri@nkom.gov.huKoczkás, Anikó Hungary Hungarian National Tourist Office koczkas@hungarytourism.huKollarová, Lucia Slovakia Ministry of Education lucia@education.gov.skKoncz, Judit Anikó Hungary College of NyíregyházaKovács, Ágnes Hungary Ministry of Cultural HeritageKovács, Zita Hungary Ministry of Cultural HeritageKőrösi, Orsolya Hungary Ministry of Cultural HeritageKriaszter, Attila Hungary Budapest Festival Orchestra

FoundationKukusik, Ágnes Hungary Ministry of Cultural HeritageLacombe, Robert Hungary French Institute inst-france@inst-france.huLaycock, Jolyon United Kingdom The Rainbow Foundation jolyon@1paradiserow.fsnet.co.ukLévai, Zita Hungary Budapest Observatory z@budobs.org

40

NAME COUNTRY INSTITUTION E-MAIL ADDRESSLujanschi, Mioara Romania Ministry of Culture and Religious

Affairsmioara@eurocult.ro

Lukásová, Eva Czech Republic State Institute for the Preservationof the Cultural Heritage

lukasova.e@supp.cz

Lyddiard, Alan United Kingdom Northern Stage directors@northernstage.comLynch, Martin Northern Ireland Imagine Belfast 2008. info@imaginebelfast2008.comMaguire, Brian Ireland National College of Art and Design maguireb@ncad.ieMance, Marijana Croatia Ministry of Culture marijana.mance@min-kulture.hrMarschall, Miklós Germany Transparency International marschall@compuserve.comMartikoniene, Agne Lithuania Lithuanian CCP agne@durys.orgMastrominas, Theodossios Belgium European Commission,

Directorate-General for Educationand Culture

Theodossios.Mastrominas@cec.eu.int

Matić, Slavko Yugoslavia Secretariat for Culture, Educationand Science of Vojvodina Province

matics@EUnet.yu

Menyhért, Anna Hungary Attila József Circle of YoungWriters

Mercer, Colin United Kingdom University of Nottingham colin.mercer@ntu.ac.ukMichalicová, Viera Slovakia Foundation – Center for

Contemporary Artsviera@scca.sk

Mikelsone, Jolanta Latvia Ministry of Culture jolanta.mikelsone@km.gov.lvMiladinov, Peter Bulgaria Ministry of Culture peter_miladinov@yahoo.comMilohnic, Aldo Slovenia Peace Institute aldo.milohnic@mirovni-institut.siMiszlivetz, Ferenc Hungary European Institute at Berzsenyi

Collegefmiszlivetz@axelero.hu

Mitchell, Ritva Finland ERICArts, Helsinki ekvit@saunalahti.fi, ritva.mitchell@minedu.fiMoldovai, Viktor Hungary Hungarofest Public Benefit

CompanyMore, James United Kingdom University of Northumbria at

Newcastlejames.more@unn.ac.uk

Mucica, Delia Romania Media Division, Ministry of Culture delia.mucica@cultura.roMulder, Karel The Netherlands Contract Groep Holland k.mulder@hsholland.nlNagy, Mihály Hungary Ministry of Cultural HeritageNetter, Dóra Hungary Partnership of Hungarian Local

Government AssociationsNógrádi, Csilla Hungary Totem Publishing Ltd. nogradicsilla@hotmail.comObuljen, Nina Croatia Culturelink / IMO nina@irmo.hrO’Donnell, Michael Northern Ireland, U.K. Making Music, The National

Federation of Music Societiesmod@classicfm.net

Ohlau, Jürgen Uwe Germany Kulturstiftung des FreistaatesSachsen

robert.grahl@kss.smwk.sachsen.de

Olafsson, Thorgeir Iceland Ministry of Education, Science andCulture

thorgeir.olafsson@mrn.stjr.is

Orlandi, Giorgio Italy Gina Lollobrigida AgentPálóczi-Horváth, Viktória Hungary Ministry of Cultural Heritage viktoria.paloczi@nkom.gov.huPap, István Hungary Békés Megye Képviselő-Testülete

Megyei Művelődési Központja ésKézműves Szakiskolája

mmkmail@bekes-mmk.hu

Papp, Emese Hungary Ministry of Cultural Heritage emese.papp@nkom.gov.huParker, Mike Wales, U. K. Earthfall earthfall@earthfall.org.ukPascual i Ruiz, Jordi Spain Institute of Culture, Barcelona City

CouncilJpascual@pangea.org

Pecoraro, Sergio Italy CORUS s.r.l.

41

NAME COUNTRY INSTITUTION E-MAIL ADDRESSPérez Lázaro, José Spain Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y

Deport, Secretaría de Estado deCultura

jose.perez@dgcc.mcu.es

Péter, Ágnes Denmark European Council of Artists dkr-eca@inet.uni2.dkPéter, Katalin HungaryPodgaiska, Inese Belgium Mission of the Republic of Latvia

to the EUPordány, Sarolta Hungary Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Dept.

of Non-Formal Education andCultural Activities

sarolta.pordany@nkom.gov.hu

Preston, Anthony United Kingdom North West Arts Board apreston@nwarts.co.ukPrice, Jon United Kingdom Cultural Management Unit,

Northumbria Universityjon.price@unn.ac.uk

Puczkó, László Hungary KPMGPulver, Marvi Estonia Cultural Service, Tartu City

Governmentmarvi.pulver@raad.tartu.ee

Rácz, Jolán Hungary Bureau for the Protection ofCultural Heritage

Raffay, Zoltán Hungary Hungarian Academy of Sciences raffay@dti.rkk.huRainesalo, Pirkko Finland Ministry of Education and Culture pirkko.rainesalo@minedu.fiRazlogov, Kirill Russia Russian Institute for Cultural

Researchrazlog@hotmail.com

Rich, J. Dennis Illinois, USA Arts, Entertainment and MediaManagement, Columbia CollegeChicago

jdrich@popmail.colum.edu

Riczkó, István Hungary University of Szeged riczko.istvan@stud.u-szeged.huRobinson, Sue United Kingdom Spot On, Lancashire’s Rural

Touring Networkspoton@communityfutures.org.uk

Rónai, Iván Hungary Ministry of Cultural Heritage ivan.ronai@nkom.gov.huRoper, Gerda United Kingdom University of Northumbria gerda.roper@unn.ac.ukRose, Martin Belgium British Council Brussels martin.rose@britishcouncil.beRothwell, Andrew United Kingdom Newcastle City Council andrew.rothwell@newcastle.gov.ukRózsa, Mihály Hungary Freelance rozsa@telnet.huRubovszky, Rita Hungary Hungarofest Public Benefit

CompanySarkadi, Tünde Hungary Hungarian National Tourist Office sarkadi@hungarytourism.huSchultz, Mikael Sweden Project manager mikael.schultz@si.seSgarbi, Vittorio Italy Ministry of CultureSólyom, Anna Hungary ELTE-TÓFKSundkvist, Leif Sweden CCP Sweden leif.sundkvist@kur.seŞuteu, Corina Romania ECUMEST corina.suteu@wanadoo.fr.Svenson, Per Sweden Swedish National Council for

Cultural Affairsper.svenson@kur.se

Szabó, Ildikó Hungary Ministry of Cultural Heritage ildiko.szabo@nkom.gov.huSzabó, Márta Hungary Hungarian National Commission

for UNESCOmarta.szabo@om.hu

Szabó, György Hungary TRAFÓ gyuri@trafo.huSzabó-Pap, Gabriella Hungary Ministry of Cultural Heritage gabriella.szabopap@nkom.gov.huSzendi, Zsuzsa Hungary CCC+BognerSzíjjártó, Csaba Hungary Ministry of Foreign AffairsSzombati, Béla Hungary Ministry of Foreign AffairsSzűcsné dr. Sebestyén, Irén Hungary Local Governmental Office of

Hajdúnánás Town

42

NAME COUNTRY INSTITUTION E-MAIL ADDRESSTeneva, Krassimira Bulgaria The Red House Centre for Culture

and Debatekteneva@redhouse-sofia.org

Tengerdi, Zita Hungary College for Modern BusinessStudies

tengerdi@freemail.hu

Thingstad, Silje Norway Cultural Department, Ministry ofCulture

silje.thingstad@kd.dep.no

Tibor, Ágnes Hungary Hungarian University of Craft andDesign, Management Institute

tiboragi@mail.datanet.hu

Tiensuu-Nylund, Mervi Finland Ministry of Education and Culture mervi.tiensuu-nylund@minedu.fiTóth, Nikoletta Hungary CCP Hungary toth@kulturpont.huUrsillo, Anna Maria Italy CORUS s.r.l.Varbanova, Lidia Hungary Open Society Institute Varbanova@osi.huVarga, István Hungary Monostori Erőd Military Culture

Centreinfo@fort-monostor.hu

Varslot, Tone Norway Ministry of Cultural AffairsVéron, Claude France Relais-Culture-Europe cveron@relais-culture-europe.orgVida, Eszter Hungary Hungarian Music Council Music

Information CentreVincent, Jean France International Federation of

Musicians (FIM)fimparis@compuserve.com

Vinická, Markéta Czech Republic Ministry of Culture vinickam@mkcr.czVujadinović, Dimitrije Yugoslavia Balkankult info@balkankult.orgWagner, Gottfried The Netherlands European Cultural Foundation abijker@eurocult.orgWallis, Ann United Kingdom Yorkshire Arts ann.wallis@yarts.co.ukWeidebaum, Reet Estonia Ministry of Culture reet.weidebaum@kul.eeWiesand, Andreas Germany ERICArts wiesand@ericarts.orgWilliams, Jennifer United Kingdom Centre for Creative Comunities info@creativecommunities.org.ukWollák, Katalin Hungary National Office of Cultural Heritage wollak@koi.huWomela, Piotr Poland Ministry of Culture womela@mk.gov.plWyszomirski, Pawel Poland National Heritage Institute ccp@idn.plŽáková, Eva Czech Republic Theatre Institute eva.zakova@divadlo.czZongor, Attila Hungary CCP Hungary zongor@kulturpont.huZuchniak, Monika Poland National Heritage Institute ccp@idn.pl

MAIN CONFERENCE SPONSOR

Ministry of Cultural Heritage Hungary

CONFERENCE ALSO SUPPORTED BY

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

SPECIAL THANKS TOAustrian Science and Research Liaison Office

House of ParliamentHungarian Academy of Sciences

Hungarian National MuseumMillenáris Park

Hungarian National Commission for UNESCOand to all speakers and contributors

Cover design: Visualminds Stúdió / Prepress: Vetula Visual Bt. / Print: Starkiss Bt.

PROGRAMMETHURSDAY, 14TH FEBRUARY, NATIONAL MUSEUMOPENING PLENARY – Greetings and introductory speechesCHAIR: Attila Zongor / SPEAKERS: László Baán, Thomas Glaser, Béla Szombati, Ion Caramitru

FRIDAY, 15TH FEBRUARY, ACADEMY OF SCIENCESPLENARY 1 – The cultural landscape in today’s EuropeCHAIR: Miklós Marschall / SPEAKERS: Ferenc Miszlivetz, Vera Boltho, Kirill Razlogov

WORKING GROUP 1A – The artsCHAIR: György Szabó / SPEAKER: Mik FloodWORKING GROUP 1B – Media and cinemaCHAIR: Irina Boulin-Ghica / SPEAKER: Wolfgang ClossWORKING GROUP 1C – Cultural heritageCHAIR: Geoffrey Brown / SPEAKER: Sanjin Dragojević

PLENARY 2 – Culture and the reforming of European governanceCHAIR: Dragan Klaić / SPEAKERS: Pavel Černoch, Mary Ann DeVlieg, Rachel Guglielmo

WORKING GROUP 2A – Culture 2000CHAIR: Agne

. Martikoniene

./ SPEAKER: Theodossios Mastrominas

WORKING GROUP 2B – The future of other EU initiatives and the trans-national fundsCHAIR: José Pérez Lázaro / SPEAKER: Geoffrey Brown

SATURDAY, 16TH FEBRUARY, ACADEMY OF SCIENCESPLENARY 3 – Focusing on EU regional policy: the place of culture in the Structural FundsCHAIR: Ritva Mitchell / SPEAKERS: Colin Mercer, Corina Şuteu, Andreas Wiesand

WORKING GROUP 3A – Urban cultureCHAIR: Péter Inkei / SPEAKER: Marianna KajantieWORKING GROUP 3B – Culture and regional developmentCHAIR: Pirkko Rainesalo / SPEAKER: Claude VéronWORKING GROUP 3C – Cultural tourismCHAIR: Ildikó Szabó / SPEAKER: Francesc Badia

PLENARY 4 – Cultural cooperation and mobility in an enlarged EuropeCHAIR: Dorota Ilczuk/ SPEAKERS: Rod Fisher, Robert Lacombe, Kazimierz Krzysztofek

WORKING GROUP 4A – State administrations and inter-governmental organisationsCHAIR: Vesna Čopič / SPEAKER: Costis DallasWORKING GROUP 4B – Cultural industriesCHAIR: Delia Mucica / SPEAKER: Jordi Pascual RuizWORKING GROUP 4C – Third sector organisations and civil societyCHAIR: Lidia Varbanova / SPEAKER: Ugo Bacchela

SUNDAY, 17TH FEBRUARY, HOUSE OF PARLIAMENTCLOSING PLENARY – Brave New Europe?CHAIR: Naima Balić / SPEAKER: Vittorio Sgarbi / RAPPORTEURS: Andrea Csanádi, Diane Dodd, Daniela Jelinčić, NinaObuljen / CONCLUDING SPEECH: Erhard Busek / FAREWELL SPEECH: Orsolya Kőrösi